Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BOUNDARY COMMISSION REPORTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Peake: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the reports of the Boundary Commissioners, and when they will be published.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. The report of the Commission for Northern Ireland has been published, and it is hoped to publish the remaining reports on Friday of next week.

Mr. Peake: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in view of the various misfortunes which have attended this question of redistribution, he will proceed with the preparation of a Bill on the matter at a very early date?

Mr. Ede: I have anticipated the right hon. Gentleman's Question, and am already getting on with the job.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Italians (Business Permit)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has authorised the re-entry to this country of the Quaglino brothers, who returned to Italy in 1940 with other Fascist sympathisers in the party of the then Italian Ambassador; and what steps he is taking to ensure that they refrain from political activities.

Mr. Ede: Permission was given to these two brothers to come to this country for a visit to deal with the business interests which they acquired during their residence here before the war. They will be expected to leave as soon as the purpose of their business visit has been fulfilled. I have no reason to suppose that they will engage in undesirable activities but in the event of them engaging in activities other than the business purposes for which the visit was authorised their stay would be terminated immediately.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that although, since putting down this Question, I have heard that the two men performed valuable services to the Allied cause during the war, there is still some disquiet that they should have been admitted to this country while many hundreds of others are refused admission?

Mr. Ede: If the others have as good reasons, and they submit them to me, they will be admitted.

Germans (Unauthorised Entry)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, despite their unauthorised entry into this country, and taking into account their ill-treatment at the hands of the Poles, he will allow Erich Schillinzki and Gustav Schrinzog, both of Danzig, to stay in this country as land workers or miners, instead of ordering their deportation to certain persecution.

Mr. Ede: The information at present in my possession about these two men is not sufficient to enable me to come to a final decision about their disposal. When inquiries are completed, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the earnest pleas put in on behalf of these two men by Mr. Daniel Hopkin, the Marlborough Street magistrate, when he remanded them? I believe that they are actually Germans.

Mr. Ede: I shall take into account all the circumstances of this case when I have complete information in front of me.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider in this case, and in


all other cases of great difficulty which may cause terrible hardship to the individual, consulting the International Refugee Organisation before sending these people to what may be torture in a slave camp under Soviet control?

Mr. Ede: I endeavour to get all the information I possibly can, and where it appears that the organisation named by the noble Lord can help me, I consult them.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if he is looking for people who suffered badly from racial enemies, and who are looking for refuge with a view to coming into this country, there are many people who would have prior claims?

Mr. Ede: One of the difficulties which confronts me in these cases is dealing with people who come in illegally, and who might otherwise have had good claims on our compassion.

GLASS WOOL (SALES)

Mr. House: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to stop the sale of glass wool because of the danger involved from glass splinters.

Mr. Ede: I am advised that glass wool has a number of legitimate industrial uses. It does, however, freely break up when handled, and it should be kept away from foodstuffs and out of the reach of small children.

Mr. House: Am I to understand from that answer that the sale of glass wool is to be prohibited in the multiple shops?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. A statement was made last year about this matter, and I understand that no accidents occurred afterwards. I hope that this Question and answer will direct the attention of people to the necessity for handling this stuff carefully.

Mr. House: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has said that the sale of glass wool will be prohibited, and yet it is not being prohibited from being sold in the shops, but is still being sold?

Mr. Ede: I thought I said exactly the opposite. It is not being prohibited.

RED CROSS CHRISTMAS DRAW (POLICE ACTION)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Scotland Yard intervened to stop the Christmas Draw in aid of the funds of the County of London Branch of the British Red Cross Society.

Mr. Ede: The draw was illegal and rendered the promoters liable to proceedings under the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. The Commissioner of Police decided that the case could properly be dealt with by way of warning on condition that the draw was abandoned.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, in these times, when there are so many undetected serious crimes, the time of the police could be more valuably spent in other directions; and, furthermore, is he aware that I have in my hand here a rather touching photograph published this year by the "Leicester Mercury" showing police cadets lining up to buy tickets for a prize draw at the Leicester Police and Special Constables' dance?

Mr. Ede: They are not within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, and I can only hope that the advertisement which the hon. Gentleman has given to their activities will warn them off breaches of the law in future. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is the duty of the police to see that the law is enforced, and I think that, on this occasion, they acted with propriety.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the interest shown by the Metropolitan Police in the legality of Christmas draws, will they investigate the legality of a Christmas draw which is, at the moment, being organised by the West Fulham Labour Party, and a ticket for which—though I am glad to say I have not paid for it—I hold in my hand?

Mr. Ede: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to be careful in walking about with an incriminating document in his possession.

Mr. Janner: In view of the absurd position that has been created in consequence of the legal situation with regard to draws generally, and the fact that nobody in the country really observes the


law in this particular regard whenever it comes to a question of charity, is it not about time that this particular matter was remedied by some kind of legislation?

Mr. Ede: I have the ambition of dealing, at some time, with the laws relating to gaming and similar matters, but I would not like to give a date.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICEC

C.I.D. (Overtime)

Commander Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the average number of hours of overtime worked by members of the C.I.D. for the week ending Saturday, 22nd November, 1947.

Mr. Ede: In the Metropolitan police force during the week in question, the average overtime of members of the C.I.D. was about 16¼ hours. I am not in a position to give the equivalent figures for other forces.

Commander Galbraith: In view of his answer and the excellent work done by these officers, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they received payment for these extra hours worked, and, if not, would he take some action to alter the anomalous position which at present exists?

Mr. Ede: At the moment, the detective forces do not get payment for overtime. The amount of overtime at present is, I think, rendered somewhat excessive by the number we are short of establishment in the force, but the question of a just treatment of this matter is engaging my attention.

Meeting, Bethnal Green (Extra Duties)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police, and from which Divisions, were on duty on the evening of 27th November, at Wilmott Street, Bethnal Green, to protect Sir Oswald Mosley; who was the officer in charge; from what routine duties these police were removed; and what was the cost of maintaining these forces on duty for this purpose.

Mr. Ede: The greatest number of police officers on duty at any one time on the

evening of 27th November, in connection with this meeting, was 97, under the Acting Superintendent, H. Division. Reinforcements were draw from beat and patrol duties in two neighbouring Divisions without additional cost to public funds. It was necessary to employ this number of police to prevent a breach of the peace being caused by opponents of the meeting who, by means of a motorcar with a loudspeaker, incited a crowd to assemble near the premises, and there was reason to apprehend organised violence.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that, if this large body of police had not been employed for that purpose, there would have been no disturbance, as this man would not have come out unless he had been assured that a large body of police were at his disposal?

Mr. Ede: This man has no body of police at his disposal, and no assurance of any body of police being at his disposal, beyond the assurance that every citizen of this country has with regard to the police force.

Earl Winterton: Is it not the case that the majority of these police were used to prevent the Communists fighting their natural allies, the Fascists?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that is a bad description.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that, before the war, this man proposed to come to Glasgow, but that when the police said that they could not protect him if he came to Glasgow, he did not come?

Mr. Ede: That seems to me to be a reflection on the Glasgow police, which I do not endorse.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Am I to understand from my right hon. Friend's original reply that the rest of the streets in this town were left unprotected because the police were taken off their beats?

Mr. Ede: No, the hon. Lady should not draw that deduction, although, undoubtedly, the strength of the police force for its ordinary duties was weakened on that evening.

Mr. Speaker: This individual is getting a lot of publicity.

SIR OSWALD MOSLEY (RELEASE CONDITIONS)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any conditions relating to political activity were attached to the release of Sir Oswald Mosley.

Mr. Ede: The conditions attached under Defence Regulation 18B to the release of Sir Oswald Mosley from detention amounted to a complete prohibition of all forms of political activity; they ceased to have effect on the 9th May, 1945, when that defence regulation was revoked.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether the regulation prohibiting the use of uniforms still applies?

Mr. Ede: That is not a regulation; that is an Act which was passed before the outbreak of war, and is still in full force. For the benefit of anybody who might be contemplating breaking it, I would state that it will be most strictly enforced.

Mr. Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the recent statements made by Sir Oswald Mosley, he will consider introducing a law which will make it illegal to propagand either for racial discrimination or for denouncing Parliament and its institutions?

Mr. Ede: I gave an answer last week which indicated that the matters generally connected with the subjects named by my hon. Friend are engaging my attention, in consultation with the Law Officers.

Mrs. Manning: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he does not consider the propagation of the idea in this country of the one-party State is subversive?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady's question is a little wide. The Question only asked whether any conditions relating to political activity were attached to his release at the time.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (REPORTS)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he hopes to publish the report of the Committee on proposed reforms in the Channel Islands, of which he is Chairman.

Mr. Ede: The report of the Committee of the Privy Council of constitutional and judicial reforms in the Channel Islands was presented to Parliament in March last. If the hon. Member is referring to the Privy Council Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the state of Alderney, I hope that this report will be available early in 1948.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Home Secretary aware that since the German occupation of the Channel Islands many Channel Islanders are very critical of the treatment they receive from their own Government; and, while I realise that his powers are limited, will he do all he can to see that justice is done for the Channel Islanders under their law, and in receiving reparations from the Germans?

Mr. Ede: I think that if the recommendations in the reports which have been published, and in the one which is about to be published, are carried out, very considerable reforms in the control of the Government by the people of the Islands will have been established.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it, as far as he can, that those reforms are carried out?

Mr. Ede: These Islands are self-governing. The Committees gave advice, and I am glad to say that, in the main, the advice is being followed.

LEICESTER PRISON

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that numbers of prisoners are sleeping three in a cell in the Leicester prison; and what precautions are being taken against infectious diseases breaking out there, particularly, in view of the inadequate ventilation of the cells.

Mr. Ede: Owing to the very great increase in the prison population, it is not possible at the present time to avoid some cases of prisoners having to sleep three in a cell. Every prisoner is medically examined on admission. Apart from this it has not been found necessary to take any special medical precautions. The ventilation of the cells at Leicester prison is not inadequate.

Mr. Janner: Could my right hon. Friend stage the size of the cells in which these people are being incarcerated?

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will see that he has an answer.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can my right hon. Friend say whether steps are taken to isolate tubercular prisoners?

Mr. Ede: The medical staff of the prison would certainly look after that.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Are precautions taken to disinfect the prison cells when they become vacant?

Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend should put that question down.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why no working parties are now going out from the Leicester Prison to local farms.

Mr. Ede: While the prison authorities are anxious to resume the employment of prisoners on local farms as soon as possible, I regret that no officers are at present available at this prison to supervise them.

Mr. Janner: Would it not be a relief to the officers themselves if large parties were taken out to farms and were enabled to carry on with this work? Is it not a fact that hitherto these men have behaved in a very orderly manner and have done their job very well?

Mr. Ede: I am exceedingly anxious that as much of this and other useful work as possible shall be done by prisoners. I regret that at the moment shortage of staff does not enable me to provide sufficient supervision for these working parties which, as my hon. Friend says, have been very well behaved, taken as a whole.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Military Married Quarters (Civilian Tenants)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health what consultations have taken place with the War Office for the rehousing of tenants of property belonging to the Territorial Army and Air Force Association; and what procedure was agreed upon.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): This matter has been discussed with the War Office and the associations

of local authorities, and it has been agreed that the military authorities will keep in close touch with the local authorities and my principal housing officers in efforts to rehouse occupants of military married quarters against whom they propose to take action for recovery of possession. I have issued instructions to my principal housing officers, and the War Office have issued similar instructions to Commands.

Mr. Fletcher: May I take it that no decision will be taken to evict tenants from this property until final arrangements have been made for them to be rehoused?

Mr. Bevan: I could not give an overall assurance at the moment, but we are doing our very best to find alternative accommodation and we shall do our utmost to prevent individual hardship.

Sir Harold Webbe: Do the right hon. Gentleman's remarks apply also to married quarters occupied in Westminster?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will study my answer, I think he will find that it is comprehensive.

Programme, 1948

Mr. Tolley: asked the Minister of Health, if he will make a comprehensive statement on the proposed housing policy for 1948, as this is causing concern among local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the circular I have issued to local authorities, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask whether in the programme for 1948 the Minister will cease his policy of political prejudice, and allow free enterprise to play its part?

Mr. Speaker: That question is really not in Order.

Timber Licences, Birmingham

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the delays which have taken place in Birmingham owing to the refusal of his Ministry to issue timber licences; that timber yards in Birmingham are stacked with timber suitable for housing; and if he will reconsider the situation of housing in Birmingham and issue the necessary timber licences.

Mr. Bevan: The timber requirements for housing contracts in the Birmingham area have recently been reviewed, and licences will be issued wherever necessary to maintain progress on houses under construction.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the Minister really alive to the deplorable situation of re-housing in Birmingham, and will he give every possible facility to enable us to get rid of the miserable situation in which some people are living?

Mr. Bevan: I am alive to the difficulties of housing in Birmingham. I am glad to say that the Birmingham authorities are making very good progress, and we shall give them all the help in our power.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions operating in Birmingham are due to the bad administration before the war?

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only in Birmingham, but in other parts of the country, like the Isle of Wight, adequate supplies of timber and bricks are available, and yet licences are not issued so that they may be used?

Mr. Bevan: That is entirely incorrect. Of course, there is now more timber in the country than there was some months ago. Timber stocks are always higher at this time of the year, and they run down throughout the winter as licences are issued.

Digswell Camp, Welwyn (Essential Services)

Mr. Asterley Jones: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for the immediate provision of essential services, including electricity, to Digswell Camp, Welwyn, Herts.

Mr. Bevan: I have asked the Welwyn Rural District Council to submit proposals for adapting the camp for family accommodation. Water supply is already available, and an immediate examination is being made of the electricity installation to see if it can be restored.

Mr. Asterley Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that discussions on this matter have been going on since September, and is it not now time that a decision was reached?

Mr. Bevan: I think decisions have been reached, but the work has not yet been carried out. The sewerage system is defective and may have to be abandoned and other facilities installed.

Estate, Stanmore (Acquisition)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the local opposition to his Department's assent to an agreement supplemental to a contract entered into by the Harrow Urban District Council on 6th August, 1947, for the purchase of the Edgware Golf Course Estate, Stanmore, for eventual housing purposes; what is the effect of this agreement as regards the conditions as to values of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947; and whether he will withdraw his assent and institute a public inquiry into the circumstances attending the proposed acquisition of the land in question.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I am making inquiries.

Mr. Skinnard: When pursuing that inquiry, will the Minister afford an opportunity for the members of the opposition party on the council to consult him about the matter and to put forward their point of view?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot meet any separate section of the council. I can only make inquiries into the corporate activity of the council as a whole. If I started making inquiries into the conduct of sections of councils, my life would become unbearable and that of the local authorities intolerable.

Permanent Houses (Erection)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider stopping the erection of temporary houses at £1,610, and concentrate on building permanent houses at about £1,300.

Mr. Bevan: No orders for temporary houses have been placed since October, 1945. The scheme for the provision of temporary aluminium bungalows will cease when the present contracts end next April.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the Orpington Urban District Council are building permanent houses at about £1,300 apiece, and have been


congratulated upon their achievement in spite of the difficulties? Will the right hon. Gentleman send representatives from the Ministry and from other local authorities to Orpington to get a course of instruction?

Mr. Bevan: I am delighted to hear that the Orpington authorities are making such progress. I have no doubt that other authorities will note some of the attractions of Orpington, including the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIPED WATER SUPPLY, LANGTON HERRING

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the fact that the absence of an adequate supply of water in the village of Langton Herring is causing hardship to residents and to farmers who have to carry water to their cattle, and that it is now over three years since a scheme for the provision of a piped water supply was first put forward, he is prepared to take action to help the Dorchester Rural District Council to obtain the pipes necessary to carry out this scheme without further delay.

Mr. Bevan: The first part of this scheme was authorised on 2nd July, 1946. I am informed that the pipes required have been delivered. Permits for the pipes for the second instalment were issued in September last. I am doing what I can to help, but I would not accelerate delivery at the expense of other schemes of equal or greater urgency.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTION ACTS (CONSOLIDATION)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the difficulty of implementing at an early date the provisions of the Ridley Committee on Rent Control, he will introduce legislation to consolidate the law at present contained in nine Rent Restriction Acts.

Mr. Bevan: The advantage to be derived from a consolidating Measure at the present stage would not be commensurate with the time and labour involved in its preparation and I think it better to wait until the Acts can be amended.

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the recent statement of the Lord Chancellor, to the effect that no legislation on this subject is going to be introduced this Session, is final or whether the Government are prepared to reconsider the position?

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is aware of the legislative programme for this Session. It was stated in the Gracious Speech. If he wishes to ask whether time can be given for another Bill, he must put a Question down either to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Berry: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the anomalous position of, and the hardship suffered by, the tenants of Crown property, who are at present excluded from the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts?

Mr. Bevan: When we have time for a Bill dealing with this matter, all these points will be taken into account.

Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he is not going to introduce legislation to consolidate this chaotic legislation, it makes it the more urgent that legislation on the lines recommended by the Ridley Committee should be introduced as soon as possible?

Mr. Bevan: As I have said, the question whether time can be afforded for a Bill is a matter not for the Minister immediately involved, but for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS (RATING)

Mr. Binns: asked the Minister of Health if he will publish a White Paper showing the detailed effect on individual local authorities of the rating proposals for Electricity and Transport Undertakings in Section 94 of the Local Government Bill.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that the detailed information asked for is not available to me, and could not be made available without an undue amount of labour.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most local authori-


ties would be able to help him in this matter, and that authorities like Radcliffe lose 13 per cent. of their rateable value, and an urban district council in Lancashire as much as 60 per cent.?

Mr. Bevan: Individual authorities will make their positions known, but I could not give all the information asked for. It would involve getting returns from more than 8,000 authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING OF SITE VALUES (COMMITTEE)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to announce the terms of reference to the proposed Committee on the Rating of Site Values and its constitution.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have appointed a Committee consisting of: Mr. Erskine Simes (Chairman), Sir William Darling, Mr. J. D. Trustram Eve, Mrs. Ursula K. Hicks, Mr. C. H. Lockhart, Mr. James McBoyle, Mr. T. A. O'Hare, Mr. R. R. Stokes, Mr. C. H. Walker, and Mr. T. Waterhouse.
The terms of reference are:
To consider and report on the practicability and desirability of meeting part of local expenditure by an additional rate on site values, having regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts and other factors.

Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the setting up of this Committee will be welcomed by all the progressive local authorities Who have been pressing for some progress in this matter for a long time.

Mr. Bevan: I am delighted that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I have had the opportunity of setting up this most interesting committee and I shall look forward both to the proceedings of the Committee and to the Report.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the two gentlemen referred to by him as Members of the Committee, Sir William Darling and Mr. Stokes, are identical with two hon. Members of this House, and, if so, should they not be referred to by their constituencies?

Mr. Bevan: I think that that is the perfectly proper thing to do. It should have been done, and I am sorry.

Mr. David Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the two appointments he has mentioned will be regarded as "jobs for the boys"?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the ex-Lord Provost of Edinburgh has been appointed to this Committee, what representative of the other section of opinion in Scotland has been appointed to counter-balance that appointment?

Mr. Bevan: Among others, the City Treasurer of Glasgow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Transport (Petrol Economies)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Education what instructions he has issued for the purpose of saving petrol in regard to the transport of children to school; and what is his estimated annual saving as a result.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): None, Sir. Local education authorities are well aware that their arrangements for the transport of children to school should be made with proper regard for economy.

Sir T. Moore: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the expenditure under this head, whatever it is, is really justified, when the parents of these children are denied the basic ration which would enable them to carry out these duties?

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say whether he anticipates any increase in the available transport for school children, because it is a very urgent matter in the rural districts?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is a question of local authorities, and all local authority representation receives full consideration.

Teachers (Emergency Training)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Education if he will give the reasons for the delays now occurring in the admission of temporary teachers to colleges under


the Emergency Training Scheme; and whether he is aware of the difficult financial straits in which many of these temporary teachers now find themselves.

Mr. Tomlinson: The delays are due to the large number of men candidates and the necessarily limited capacity of the colleges. I have increased the number of colleges to the highest figure which can be justified, having regard to the prospects of employment. On the second part of the Question, I have recently approved a recommendation of the Burnham Committee which will enable local education authorities at their discretion to extend the salary scale for this class of temporary teachers.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that this scale does not apply to men employed as clerical assistants by local authorities and that in some instances, particularly when they are married, the amount they receive is totally inadequate, and could he make representation about it?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into the matter. There is more involved than appears in the Question.

Mr. Cecil Poole: Is the Minister aware that it is not only men who are being denied entrance, but women also, and why does he not do the sensible thing of announcing three-year Froebel grants, and thereby ease the situation?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is a different question.

Mr. Haydn Davies: asked the Minister of Education how many emergency training colleges for men are to be converted into women's colleges; what are their names and the proposed dates of conversion.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sending my hon. Friend a list giving the information which he desires. Most of the proposed conversions will take effect in 1949.

Mr. Haydn Davies: asked the Minister of Education how many men are still awaiting admission to emergency colleges; how many of these are ex-Service men; what is the present waiting period for those already accepted; and by how many months will this be extended by the decision to reduce the number of colleges.

Mr. Tomlinson: Men who applied while they were still in the Services are now entering emergency colleges after waiting about eighteen months from the date of their release. The corresponding waiting period for future entrants will rise by stages to a maximum of about two years, irrespective of the proposed closure of some colleges. These closures will have no appreciable effect on the maximum waiting period, but will prevent its falling as rapidly as it would otherwise have fallen for the last candidates on the waiting list.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that the bulk of these men are married ex-Service men and are undergoing financial hardship arising from the long waiting period between their acceptance and entrance to the colleges, does the Minister think it is right to close colleges at this moment, and should he not be opening new ones to give these men a chance?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not closing colleges at the present moment; the anticipation is we shall be transferring them from men to women in 1948 and 1949 because of the urgent need for women teachers. But we have opened as many colleges as is convenient to meet the present situation.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister consider it fair to ask a man to wait two years before he can get into an emergency training college?

Mr. Tomlinson: When this scheme was initiated we did not know either the extent to which applications would be made, or the numbers that we should be able to train, but when I tell the House that we had something like 100,000 applications, and have accepted 40,000 for training, they will appreciate it would be impossible not to contemplate a waiting period. It is not a question of whether it is fair to ask them to wait. They have been told the circumstances and have been promised that if they do wait, they will be accepted.

Mr. Chetwynd: Have many people who have been accepted withdraw their claims, in view of the long waiting period?

Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give the figures without notice.

Mr. Haydn Davies: asked the Minister of Education what is the present


estimated shortage of men teachers in aided and maintained schools; and what steps he proposes to take to increase the supply from those who have already applied for emergency training.

Mr. Tomlinson: According to the returns received from local education authorities, there were on 1st October last 2,268 vacancies for men teachers in maintained and assisted primary and secondary, including special schools, and in addition 1,049 vacancies which could be filled either by men or by women. The output of trained men teachers from the emergency colleges will amount to rather over 8,000 in 1948, as compared with about 3,000 in 1947.

Primary School Accommodation, Kent

Mr. Percy Wells: asked the Minister of Education (1), whether he is aware that the present roll of children of primary school age in the county of Kent is 107,467 and that the present total primary school accommodation, including accommodation much below the minimum standard prescribed by the regulations, is only sufficient for 105,720 children; that the estimated primary roll for the summer of 1952 will be 126,970; and what steps are contemplated to make available the 50 new schools urgently required;
(2) if he is aware that the Summer Term returns for 1947 show that in Kent primary schools there were 1,273 classes of 40 children and over, of which 148 consisted of 50 or over; that, unless huts and other classroom accomodation are made available, the Kent Education Committee will be compelled, either to raise the school entry age to six years, or place the children of five and six on part-time education; and what steps he is taking to relieve the situation.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have seen a report of the Kent Education Committee which includes the statements quoted in these Questions. I have since discussed with the authority the planning and execution of their present and future building programmes. I have made a number of suggestions, particularly about the methods of construction, which will, I hope, lead to quicker progress.

Development Plans

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Education (1) the numbers of petitions, protests and objections he has received from local authorities, school managers and other public bodies against the development plans published by the Denbighshire L.E.A. under the Education Act, 1944;
(2) whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt in many areas in the County of Denbigh about the new development scheme of the Denbighshire Local Education Authority under the Education Act of 1944; and whether, in view of present circumstances, he will authorise the L.E.A. to postpone these developments.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have received 36 protests or objections against the Denbighshire local education authority's development plan, 14 of which relate to the secondary education proposals for one district. These objections will be carefully considered before the development plan is approved, with such modifications, if any, as after consultation with the local education authority, I consider necessary or expedient. The rate at which it will be possible to proceed with the individual projects in the approved plan will depend on the general building situation.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the very strong feeling that exists, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, is he prepared to set up a local in iry in many of these areas before he comes to any decision?

Mr. Tomlinson: In every one of the development plans submitted by the education authorities in the country the same kind of pressure is being put forward and I would not propose to set up an additional inquiry.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the difficulty of elucidating this matter by question and answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Education if he will give full details of the number of local education authorities which have, and have not, completed their development plans.

Mr. Tomlinson: One hundred and twenty-six local education authorities in England and Wales have now submitted


complete development plans, 11 authorities have submitted one or more instalments of these plans, and I understand that in the nine remaining areas the plans are in an advanced state of preparation.

Schools, Devonshire (Milk)

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Education the number of rural schools in Devonshire in which the children are supplied with heat-treated milk, untreated milk, and dried milk, respectively.

Mr. Tomlinson: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are not readily available at present owing to records being moved. I will send him the information as soon as possible.

Mr. Lambert: Is the Minister aware that there are a large number of rural schools in Devonshire getting dried milk, and can he say what steps he is taking to ensure supplies of liquid fresh milk?

Mr. Tomlinson: When I get the reports I will look into that matter and if the facts are as the hon. Member says I will see what can be done.

Universities and Training Colleges (Vacancies)

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Education if he will sponsor a central organisation which would help individuals to find suitable vacancies when applying for admittance to universities and training colleges.

Mr. Tomlinson: There is an unofficial clearing house which serves the purposes to which my hon. Friend refers for the great majority of the teachers' training colleges. The admission of students to universities is not a matter which comes within my administration.

Mr. Peart: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the university authorities and with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has some control of university finance? The Minister must be aware that students who make applications to universities or training colleges often have to make ten different applications. Surely, this is unnecessary and there should be some unifying control for training colleges and universities?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will take into consideration what my hon. Friend says, but

I think every Member of the House knows the difficulty, in maintaining the independence of the universities, of interference of this kind.

Teachers and Students (Exchange)

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Education if he will give details of any schemes for the exchange of teachers and students between this country and abroad for the year 1948.

Mr. Tomlinson: My information is not complete, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such details as are available.

Mr. Peart: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that currency restrictions will not interfere with any of the details of the plans which he has mentioned?

Mr. Tomlinson: They are not doing so.

Following is the information:

THE EXCHANGE OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS, 1948

The Exchange of Teachers

The figures for the estimated number of exchanges of teachers in 1948 are:


U.S.A.
…
…
150


Canada
…
…
100


Australia
…
…
50


South Africa
…
…
18


New Zealand
…
…
9

In addition it is expected that there will be a small number of exchanges with Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

The Exchange of Assistants

In the current school year approximately 400 French, 30 Swiss and six Belgian Assistants are serving in our schools: approximately 150 Assistants from this country are employed in France and five in Switzerland. It is expected that these numbers on both sides, will be fully maintained or even increased next year.

The Exchange of Pupils and Students

Arrangements are under discussion between the Ministry and the French Authorities for an exchange of pupils and their teachers with France during the summer term of 1948. It is estimated that some 500 pupils and 50 teachers will take advantage of these arrangements. The English Speaking Union are respon-


sible for a scheme under which 23 boys are this year attending American schools, and a similar number of American boys are in schools in this country. This number is expected to increase next year. As regards holiday exchanges, the number of these will no doubt be large, and they will cover many of the countries of Western Europe: but the number of different bodies responsible for them, and the many uncertainties regarding the extent of the demand from overseas and the conditions under which exchanges will be practicable next year make it impossible at present to give any detailed estimate. I am informed that the National Union of Students are planning approximately 250 student exchanges with eleven countries next year, but that the actual number may be considerably larger.

Hanham Folk Community Centre

Mr. Alpass: asked the Minister of Education if he will favourably consider the application of the Hanham Folk Centre Committee to purchase huts to house their various activities.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I am prepared to sponsor an application by the Hanham Folk Community Centre for a surplus hut and to consider grant-aiding its purchase. But owing to the very difficult position in the Bristol area with regard to labour and materials, there may well be unavoidable delay in erecting the hut.

Mr. Alpass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Committee have worked very hard for five years, and have collected a large sum of money locally, and that they are very anxious to obtain premises in which to house their activities? Does not he think that they deserve every possible encouragement, and will he give it?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not my fault it the encouragement is not given before it is asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA

Major Morgan (Appeal)

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when a reply may be expected to the complaint of Major Morgan forwarded on the 25th April, 1947, by the hon. Member for the City of Oxford.

The Secretary of State for the Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): Major Morgan made his appeal in Burma in August, 1946, and, unfortunately, it was lost in transmission to the Government of India. A copy was, therefore, sent out in August of this year by my Department, who have been pressing for a decision since the hon. Member raised the matter in April last. My latest information is that the authorities in India are considering the appeal in consultation with Headquarters, Far East Land Forces, Singapore, since Major Morgan is now serving in South East Asia.

Mr. Hogg: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the authorities in India he refers, does he not, to the British authorities? Is there really any justification for this long period of delay?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The authority is the Governor-General, advised by the Minister of Defence.

Anglo-Burman Community

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister why, in the negotiations with the Government of Burma, the recognised leader of the Anglo-Burmans, Mr. C. H. Campagnale, was not consulted; and why letters addressed to him by Mr. Campagnale have not been acknowledged or answered.

The Prime Minister: As regards the first part of the Question, I assume that the Mr. C. H. Campagnale referred to is Mr. C. H. Campagnac. As the hon. Member will see from Mr. Campagnac's letter of 7th November to the editor of "The New Times of Burma," of which I am arranging to send him a copy, Mr. Campagnac associated himself with the resolution adopted at the Simla Conference in 1944, to which I referred in my earlier reply to the hon. Member of 30th October about the Anglo-Burman community. As regards the second part of the Question, I have, in fact, received only one letter from Mr. Campagnac, dated 27th February, 1946, on a different subject, to which a reply was sent on 22nd March. 1946.

Sir W. Smithers: I apologise it there has been a typographical mistake. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is still grave dissatisfaction among Anglo-Burmans in Burma; and will he give an


undertaking that any of His Majesty's subjects will receive the proper courtesy and attention due to them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The assumption of that supplementary question is that they do not. I have pointed out in the case which the hon. Member has raised that Mr. Campagnac, who is personally known to me, did receive a reply. Replies have been given, and the hon. Member is rather apt to take a complaint of a single individual for that of a whole community, particularly in regard to the Anglo-Burman community.

INDIA (RETIRED OFFICERS, PENSIONS)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware of the financial difficulties in which retired British officers of the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Armed Services find themselves whilst living in the Dominions and Colonies on account of non-receipt of their pensions; and what steps is he proposing to take to ensure that these officers receive the monies due to them.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am sorry to say that there has been delay in the payment of pensions to retired officers of the Indian Defence Forces who now live in certain Dominions and Colonies overseas. But I am happy to add that it has recently been arranged that my office shall act as the agent of the Government of India, and shall provisionally assess and issue these pensions. I am not aware that similar difficulties have been caused to any retired officers of the Indian Civil Service, but I shall be glad to inquire into any cases which the hon. Member may care to raise.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the serious financial position in which some of these officers find themselves, will the Secretary of State expedite the arrangements which he has made? I am sure the House will be grateful to him for having taken such action.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have already telegraphed to all the territories concerned. I think we have got in virtually all the claims that can be made, and, I do undertake that every claim will be dealt with sympathetically and promptly.

TRADE UNIONS (GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Donner: asked the Prime Minister why he has refused to grant an interview to a deputation from the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, a nonpolitical body; whether the T.U.C. is the only body consulted on trade union matters; and whether political affiliation is a condition of recognition by His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Trades Union Congress is the established channel of communication between the Government and the trade union movement on matters such as those which the Federation of Independent Trade Unions desired to discuss. Arrangements for consultation between the Government and the two sides of industry are not affected by considerations such as those suggested in the third part of the Question.

Mr. Donner: Do I understand from that answer there is no insistence on political affiliation?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member is quite mistaken. There is no affiliation of the Trades Union Congress to any particular party.

Mr. David Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these trade unions are composed of a very small and insignificant minority in the trade union world, and do not, in fact, take part in normal negotiations in industry?

WALES (WHITE PAPER)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Prime Minister when a further White Paper on Government action in Wales is to be presented to Parliament.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. A report of Government action in Wales and Monmouthshire for the year ended 30th June, 1947, has been presented this afternoon, and copies are now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Watkins: Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether a Debate on Welsh affairs will take place this year or next year?

Mr. H. Morrison: It is intended that there shall be a Debate, and we are doing our best to have it this year. If we do not succeed, it will not be long afterwards.

Major Guy Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an indication whether we are likely to have a report on Government inaction in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: That kind of question does not deserve a reply.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (PRESS STATEMENT)

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been drawn to the statement of the Lord President of the Council at his Press conference on 20th August, 1947, describing the condition of the country as one of over-full employment; and whether that statement correctly represented, and still represents, the conclusion of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. and learned Member will be aware, he has pulled out of their context four words from a fairly long, reasoned analysis of the need for pruning the investment programme. That analysis represents the conclusion of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have not misrepresented anything, and that I was quoting from a very full report that appeared prominently in the "Manchester Guardian" in which those words were placed in inverted commas both in a headline and in the body of the article? I make no complaint.

The Prime Minister: I am making no complaint, but it is the fact that these are four words taken out of a long passage. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has studied the passage.

SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Prime Minister on what principles replies will be given by Ministers to Parliamentary inquiries on the work of socialized industries.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply, but in view of the length of the answer I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later:

Mr. H. Morrison: In the light of experience so far gained, the Government have reviewed the question of replies to Parliamentary inquiries about the work of socialised industries. During the war the Government exercised direct control over certain industries, since actually socialised or to be socialised, notably the railways. Ministers were directly responsible for the running of such services and, therefore, answered detailed questions on matters of day-to-day administration. This situation was, however, exceptional.
Under recent legislation, boards have been set up to run socialised industries on business lines on behalf of the community; and Ministers are not responsible for their day-to-day administration. A large degree of independence for the boards in matters of current administration is vital to their efficiency as commercial undertakings. A Minister is responsible to Parliament for action which he may take in relation to a board, or action coming within his statutory powers which he has not taken. This is the principle that determines generally the matters on which a Question may be put down for answer by a Minister in the House of Commons. Thus, the Minister would be answerable for any directions he gave in the national interest, and for the action which he took on proposals which a board was required by Statute to lay before him.
It would be contrary to this principle, and to the clearly expressed intention of Parliament in the governing legislation, if Ministers were to give, in replies in Parliament or in letters, information about day-to-day matters. Undue intervention by the Minister would tend to impair the board's commercial freedom of action. The boards of socialised industries are under an obligation to submit annual reports and accounts which are to be laid before Parliament. In the Government's view, it is right that Parliament should from time to time review the work of the boards, on the basis of the reports and accounts presented to Parliament.

Sir W. Smithers: Are we to take it, Mr. Speaker, that the words "socialised" and "nationalised" are synonymous?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks many curious questions, and this is one which I feel I cannot answer at short notice.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that there are no independent boards for Scotland, who will be answering Questions affecting the railways or other socialised industries? Will it be the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: The normal Parliamentary practice will be followed. In so far as there is Ministerial responsibility, the appropriate Minister will answer. In the case of transport, it will be the Minister of Transport.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman has just informed us what questions will be answered by the Government, or is he purporting to give a statement on what questions will be accepted at the Table? If the latter is the case, has the answer been given after consultation with you, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Morrison: I was asked a Question on the Government's view of what they should answer and what they should not answer. I have given the answer, and that is the view of the Government. Of course, it in no way binds, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Strauss: That means that the right hon. Gentleman's answer does not in any way indicate what Questions will be received at the Table, if put down to Ministers. It may be for the Government to determine whether or not they are to be answered.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any line of delimitation between what appointments will be the subject of Questions in the House and what appointments will not? He will realise that the appointments, salaries and conditions are matters of great interest to Members.

Mr. Morrison: It is not a question of what is of great interest to Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not. It is a question of the normal and proper accountability of Ministers to Parliament. It is quite well known that the proper accountability of Ministers to Parliament is either action they have taken, or action they could have taken and have not taken.

That is the normal rule. Therefore, if the Minister is responsible for the appointments, or it is provided that he is consulted about appointments, it would be right for the Minister to be open to Questions and answers; but if he is not responsible, then I suggest that the Minister should not be expected to answer, because it would not be his responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: I was asked a question by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). I ought to say that I was not, of course, consulted about this, but that the Table will follow what has hitherto been the usual practice. We had precedents during the last war, which will govern any Questions put to the Table.

Mr. Beswick: Will my right hon. Friend say, in regard to day-to-day matters of administration, whether he agrees that there should be some machinery through which not only the workers in nationalised industries, but the consumers, will be able to put forward questions and complaints? Is he satisfied that the provisions in the nationalised industries so far set up are adequate, or would he consider, in the light of experience, to set up a committee to investigate this most important and interesting aspect of nationalisation?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that question arises. This is a matter of what Questions the Government are to answer. We cannot discuss the whole matter in detail.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wish to raise a small point. I think the Lord President of the. Council may have been inadvertent, and it may be right to ask for a correction or confirmation. In the answer he read out, he spoke of a Minister being responsible for action he has not taken. In a supplementary answer, he spoke of being responsible for action Ministers could have taken but have not. The two things are quite different—[Interruption.] If we are not to have accuracy in these things, where are we to get to? I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman's unbriefed remarks really represent what he means, but it ought to be clear in HANSARD what he did mean.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any inconsistency between the two observations. In the first place, if a Minister


takes action, he is answerable to Parliament. In the second place if he is authorised by Statute to take action and does not take it, he is answerable to Parliament for not taking it. I think that is what I said in both cases.

Captain Crookshank: As this matter is exercising a great deal of interest, and is not clear, I suggest the time may come when we would like to have further discussion on it.

Mr. Speaker: I have also found it rather difficult. Had we not better study the statement of the Lord President of the Council, and then hon. Members can study what Questions there are from the Table's point of view. Possibly it may then be a matter suitable for an Adjournment, or some other Debate; but it seems to me that now is hardly the time to ask a lot of supplementary questions which are not very clear.

Mr. C. Poole: If it is understood that the House, by allowing this to go now, is not surrendering its right in this matter, that may be acceptable, but I respectfully suggest that an Adjournment Debate is not the occasion on which we could suitably discuss this matter, which some of us regard as of fundamental importance, because we feel that we are being deprived of Parliamentary rights at the present time because of our inability to get Questions put down.

Mr. Speaker: There is always the Table on which to rely. I reminded hon. Members that the Table would act according to precedent. May I also say that I am bearing in mind that the Christmas Adjournment is not very far ahead, and that would be better than the half hour's Adjournment which we would get now?

Mr. C. Poole: As we have never had a nationalised or socialised undertaking before—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes, we have."]—at any rate, in the same form as we have them now, in which a Minister has renounced all responsibility for the appointment of his Board, there is no established precedent.

Sir T. Moore: The Lord President has laid down what is the responsibility on the Minister. Do I understand that the gentlemen at the Table will now subordinate their judgment to what the Lord President has just said?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. The Table is quite independent of the Opposition, the Government or anybody else.

Mr. Bowles: Leaving out the matter of Parliamentary Questions, the right hon. Gentleman said, at the end of his reply, that reports and accounts would be submitted and laid on the Table of the House from time to time and Debates would accordingly take place. How does he visualise Debates taking place on the reports of the socialised industries? Will they depend on the Opposition asking for a Supply day? Or does he visualise giving one day to each industry a year?

Mr. Morrison: There have, of course, been a number of socialised industries, and this problem does not appear to have arisen. I think, however, that it does arise. The annual reports will be presented to Parliament, and I suggested that I thought that, from time to time, it would be right that the House should have discussions about them. I think that that would be a good thing. It does not follow that each report would be debated each year. There is no automatic debate on the many reports presented to Parliament, but I think that, from time to time, there ought to be Debates. This is a new thing, and whether the question of having Debates in relation to Supply comes up or not should be considered. I think that it is eminently a matter which might be discussed through the usual channels with a view to arriving at an amicable and agreed solution.

Captain Crookshank: The right form would have to be discussed, because, at first sight, I do not see how this can come in on a Supply day when the Minister has specifically dissociated himself from any responsibility.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask if now or at some future time you, Mr. Speaker, would give a ruling on this point. If the Minister has refused to answer a Question on a certain point, is that sufficient reason for the gentlemen at the Table to refuse to allow a further Question to be put down?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is always entitled on public grounds to refuse to give an answer. That is perfectly clear. If he refuses to give an answer, that is the Minister's responsibility, and it has nothing to do with me. Therefore, I


cannot authorise the Table to go behind the Minister and insert a Question a second time. The hon. Member's remedy, and the House's remedy, is to put down a Motion of Censure on the Minister, or something of that sort, for refusing to reply. That is outside my control.

Wing-Commander Millington: Is it not a fact that, should such action arise and any hon. Member feel that the Minister is not fulfilling his duties to the House, on that specific issue, the Member is perfectly right to raise a point of Order and get your Ruling at the time?

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot go as far as that. If the Minister said that it was not in the public interest to give an answer to a Question, that is the responsibility of the Minister, and I cannot overrule him.

Brigadier Head: You said, Mr. Speaker, that, in making up their minds, the Table would be able to draw on precedents available to them which were established during the war. Is not the situation that obtains today fundamentally different from that obtaining during the war?

Mr. Morrison: On the point of Order which was raised, I wish to submit, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration that the situation was entirely different during the war. Under the controls of transport, for example, the Minister was directly responsible for all the railways did, but under this Statute, as passed by Parliament, he is not so responsible for everything they do.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the precedents of the war are two-way precedents. There were precedents the other way during the war. There are older precedents still as to how Questions should be answered. I think that we can go back to Parliamentary practice without any difficulty whatsoever.

INDUSTRIAL HEALTH RESEARCH BOARD (SECRETARIAL WORK)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Lord President of the Council how long the post of secretary to the Industrial Health Research Board has been vacant; and what steps are being taken to fill it.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Board is part of the organisation of the Medical Research Council, and the secretarial duties are performed by members of the Council's headquarters staff, one of whom has been giving whole time to the work since the Board's previous secretary left at the end of September, 1946. The detailed work of the Board has recently been divided among four committees dealing with special branches of occupational health, and each of these has its own scientific secretary.

Mr. Erroll: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question, asking whether a new secretary will be appointed for the Board as a whole?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is necessary at the moment. The arrangement is working well. We are trying this arrangement of the four sub-committees, which are being taken care of by secretaries. I would rather that went on for a bit before I made up my mind about the point raised by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Emigration (Government Policy)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Labour the Government policy in respect of emigration; and particularly whether he will give an assurance that there is no desire to see the vigorous and able-bodied leave the country, thus increasing the ratio of non-producers.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The Government's general policy remains as stated in the White Paper (Cmd. 6658) issued in June, 1945. Our own manpower needs are sufficiently safeguarded, apart from present transport limitations, by the arrangements made with the Governments of Commonwealth countries to avoid the loss of an undue proportion of workers with qualifications specially needed in this country.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that we old men do not want to see any steps taken to keep these young men in the country to earn our living; and that we would prefer to see them in the vast open spaces of the Empire?

Midland Factories (Working Week)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SIDNEY SHEPHARD:

51. To ask the Minister of Labour if he is aware that in Midland factories the output per man hour is showing a downward trend since the four-day working week was introduced in October; and if he will endeavour to institute a five-day week whilst still avoiding power cuts.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Is it in order for this Question to be passed without some answer, as it obviously has very great propaganda value?

Mr. Speaker: Whether it carries propaganda value or not, it was in Order apparently, because it passed the Table. It was not asked, and I have no comment to make.

Insurable Workers (Palace of Westminster)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many insurable workers are employed at the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Isaacs: This information is not separately recorded, and I do not propose to make special inquiries.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the Minister's speech in the Debate last night, and his anxiety to keep every worker employed in useful industry, will he consider getting information about both this Palace and Buckingham Palace?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. As I mentioned last week, it is the policy of the Ministry not to obtain information relating to special establishments of any kind. To try to do so under the Order made last night would be quite outside the terms of that Order.

Sir T. Moore: Will that Order include Members of this House?

Directed Labour

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to protect conscientious objectors to his new code of labour direction and registration.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement of last night.

Mr. Hogg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, quite apart

from objection to particular types of work, there are still some people in this country who object to forced labour, which they regard as a form of slavery?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and there are still some hon. Members in this House who recommend people to disobey the law.

Mr. Peart: Can my right hon. Friend indicate any steps which he could take to deal with people who deliberately and maliciously incite others to break the law of this country?

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better pass on to the next Question.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered a letter sent to him from Mr. Slim Dexter, of 2, Chichester Place, Bayswater, W.2, informing him that Mr. Dexter is deliberately breaking his new direction code; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but Mr. Slim Dexter has not, so far as I am aware, broken the law, and the last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep his eye on Mr. Slim Dexter in case he does?

Mr. Isaacs: Judging from the tone of the letter, it may be that Mr. Slim Dexter is an excepted person under Article 4 (j) of the Order.

Training Centre, Hull

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the date of the commencement of the new training courses at the Hull Government Training Centre; what numbers of men and women are to be trained; what training is to be given for disabled persons and the numbers; and where application should be made for training.

Mr. Isaacs: Building trade classes are already in progress at the new training centre at Hull. It is not possible to forecast when other types of classes can be started, since they must be housed in a separate building which is not yet completed. The further details are rather long and I will, with permission circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Pursey: Will the Minister arrange for his announcement to be given


the widest possible publicity locally because of the new opportunity it affords to a number of unemployed people who, under the Government scheme, will be able to make a new start in life?

Mr. Isaacs: We will give whatever publicity we can to this, because it is a piece of very valuable work, and important to those whom it affects.

Following are the details:

Forty-four training places in boot and shoe repairing, hairdressing, and motor repairing will be provided for the disabled as soon as the building is ready, and there will be 28 places in body building and watch and clock repairing open to both able-bodied and disabled persons. A further 32 places in engineering will be provided for the disabled as soon as the necessary equipment can be obtained and installed. In addition a course of industrial rehabilitation will be provided in a special unit for 100 disabled persons who need this to fit them for employment or full-time training. Applications for both vocational training and industrial rehabilitation courses may be made at any of my local offices.

Forces (Agricultural Trades)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 23,000 officers and men in the three Services covered by the Ministry of Labour classification, "Agricultural Trades," formerly lived in Scotland.

Mr. Isaacs: This information is not readily available, and its extraction would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time which would not be justified.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Minister aware that this is vitally important to agriculture in Scotland; and, in view of the fact that there are separate Agriculture Bills for England and Scotland, will he consider paying special attention to the employment position in Scotland?

Mr. Isaacs: The difficulty is that the Ministry of Labour records are not centralised. We would have to go to every one of our Departments, and we are confined to the National Service men. The records relating to the Service Departments and volunteers for regular engagement are kept in the records of the Service Departments. It would require a considerable amount of work to get the figures out.

Mr. Frank Byers: Would the Minister now consider releasing any of these 23,000 officers and men who wish to take up work in agriculture, since they are required vitally at the present time.

Mr. Isaacs: As I announced many months back, every opportunity has been given to men in the Forces to take their release if they want to take up agricultural work.

Mr. Scollan: Does the Minister's original answer mean that when young men are called up for service the employment exchanges take no account of their former employment, and keep no record?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, it means quite the contrary. We do keep those records very carefully. They are kept in the exchange in the area, and are not brought to the central office.

Miners' Hostel, Cowdenbeath

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the ex-Service men threatened with eviction from the hostel near Cowdenbeath, Fife, have not been found suitable alternative accommodation; that a decision has now been taken to cut off their food supplies while they remain in the hostel; and who was responsible for this decision.

Mr. Isaacs: This is a case of industrial workers occupying rooms at a miners' hostel, which is run by the National Hostels Corporation on behalf of the National Coal Board. The industrial workers were admitted on the clear understanding that they would have to leave when their places were required for miners. The rooms are now required for miners. The men were so informed on 19th November, and formal notices to quit expiring on 29th November were issued. Our welfare officers have given the men a list of 90 lodgings available in the neighbourhood. As the men now have possession of their ration books and a list of alternative lodgings, there is nothing to stop them from being housed and fed. Their reluctance to leave is certainly depriving miners of accommodation designed for miners.

Mr. Gallacher: Apart from the question of alternative accommodation—on which the men have very strong views, and regard it as unsuitable—is the Minister supporting the cowardly, mean and despicable


decision to refuse to supply these men with food, and to leave them to go out in the morning without any food to do a hard day's work in Rosyth; or will he use his powers of direction to direct the hostel manager to supply food in the ordinary way while the men are there?

Mr. Isaacs: It is a little unfair to charge these hostel managers with being cowardly, mean and so on. It is cowardly and mean to incite people to take certain steps, and then to dodge away and not to back them up sufficiently. It is clear that when these men went into the hostel they were told individually, and in writing, that their places would have to be vacated at seven days' notice, and they accepted those conditions.

Mr. Gallacher: But it is understood that the men have not found suitable accommodation. They decided to remain in the hostel. Why does the Minister take such action as to try to starve them out? Is that a policy to pursue towards any worker?

Mr. Isaacs: That again is an unfair distortion of the facts. There is no attempt to starve these men out. They have got their ration books; they have no right to be in the hostel; they decided to stay in the hostel and not to take the alternative accommodation offered to them. They have their rations books, and they can go and get their food wherever they want to.

Mr. Gallacher: But they cannot prepare the food.

Training Establishments, Scotland

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Labour what are the respective capital costs, how many men have been trained, how many are now being trained, and what trades are being trained in Milngavie, Granton, Hillington and Dundee, and is he satisfied with the progress made in these training establishments.

Mr. Isaacs: All these centres are new centres specially planned for the Ministry's training scheme. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works that the capital costs are £227,000; £170,000; £176,000 and £210,000, respec-

tively. Milngavie is not completed, and Dundee has been handed over to the Board of Trade for use as an industrial factory. I will with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the number and trades of those trained and in training at Granton and Hillington. As regards the last part of the Question, the answer is in the affirmative.

Following are the details:


GOVERNMENT TRAINING CENTRES AT GRANTON AND HILLINGTON.


List of Trades, numbers Trained and in Training.


——
Number Trained.
Number in Training 17th November, 1946.


Granton.





Bricklayers
…
599
—


Carpenters
…
249
—


Painters
…
143
1


Plasterers
…
63
—


Plumbers
…
117
—


Slaters
…
19
1


Wood Machinists
…
8
—


Stone Masons
…
14
—


Upholsterers
…
4
28




1,216
30


Hillington.
…




Bricklayers
…
653
9


Carpenters
…
277
4


Painters
…
126
—


Plasterers
…
77
2


Plumbers
…
86
2


Slaters
…
56
—


Wood Machinists
…
9
—


Mastic Asphalt
…
2
14


Coach Body Building
…
—
32


Coach Painting
…
—
15


Sheet Metal Workers
…
—
16




1,286
94

Sir W. Darling: Can the Minister say whether he is satisfied that the expenditure in two and a half years of almost £1 million on these buildings is really economical expenditure?

Mr. Isaacs: Had it been possible to continue the work of these centres, which for the time being has had to be interrupted owing to the economic situation, I am certain that the money would have been of value to the industries, to the workers concerned, and to the nation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Captain Crookshank: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 8th December—Second Reading of the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Report stage of the Finance Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Mandated and Trust Territories Bill [Lords]; and the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill.

Tuesday, 9th December—Committee and remaining stages of the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Third Reading of the Finance Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Public Works Loans Bill; and the Medical Practitioners and Pharmacists Bill [Lords].

Wednesday, 10th December—Concluding stages of the Parliament Bill; and consideration of the Motion relating to Disclosure of Confidential Information.

Thursday, 11th December and Friday 12th December—A Debate will take place on Palestine.

Captain Crookshank: With regard to Thursday and Friday, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, first of all, when we are likely to get from the Secretary of State for the Colonies the promised statement which, I presume, will be an important feature of that Debate; and, secondly, can he tell us what form the Debate will take? Will it be on a Motion, on the Adjournment, or on what?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to the last point, it is proposed that the Debate should take place on the Adjournment. With regard to the first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that a statement would be made shortly. The intention is that the statement should be made in the Debate.

Captain Crookshank: To make the Debate really valuable we ought to have the Government's statement some considerable time before the Debate in order that parties in all parts of the House will be able to study it and go to the Debate

fully informed of the most up-to-date situation.

Mr. Morrison: I will be willing to consider representations, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should not be so confident on the point. Sometimes a statement is made and a Debate demanded but that Debate is not always given. When a Debate is given freely and openly it does not follow that a Debate should be preceded by a considered statement some days in advance. I do not automatically surrender to the claim of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who seems to think there is a point of practice here. There is no such point of practice, but if he wants to talk nicely through the usual channels we shall be glad to talk.

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that his right hon. Friend said yesterday that the statement was going to be made soon and I imagined that "soon" from yesterday, would be sometime before this day week.

Mr. Byers: When do the Government proposes to give time to debate the very important White Paper on Capital Investment which has been put into the hands of Members of the House?

Mr. Morrison: That is under consideration. Perhaps it might be discussed through the usual channels.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Could the Leader of the House say when time will be given to discuss the Report of the Select Committee on the Members' Fund or when legislation will be introduced? We are piling up an enormous amount of money and we cannot give any of it to deserving cases.

Mr. Morrison: I am very sorry there has been some delay about this. I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prepare a White Paper, which would be a purely informative White Paper, in order to give the House some information on various possible alternatives of a factual character on this problem. I still hope to get the Debate in before Christmas, but I cannot be certain.

Mr. Boothby: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government propose to ask the House to approve of the Geneva Tariffs Agreement before Christmas?

Mr. Morrison: For technical reasons which I have not got in my head and on which I could not stand examination, I am afraid it is going to be difficult, apart from the fact that the President of the Board of Trade is now in Moscow. I had made provisional arrangements whereby it would be debated before Christmas. For various technical reasons in connection with international procedure in these matters, it may have to be put off until after Christmas. I am sorry about that but we will try to take it is early as we can.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the importance of giving the House an opportunity to discuss the Report of the Boundary Commission that I understand is to be issued on Friday.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, the House will certainly have an opportunity to debate it, because this is bound to come up as part of the Bill for redistribution and electoral reform so that the House will have the fullest opportunity of considering the proposals then.

Mr. Charles Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to inform the House if it is likely to sit during Christmas week?

Mr. Morrison: Not so far as I know, but if the hon. Gentleman has any wish to do that, perhaps he will make representations.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Could the Leader of the House tell when the accounts of the three Air Corporations for the year ended last March and promised for November will be placed before the House, and when will the Debate take place?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about the Debate. Debates on these Reports are not automatic and never were. That is a matter which we can consider and dilate on later, as I suggested in reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). I have not had notice of this question but I gather, though I cannot be sure, that these reports are on the way.

Mr. Dumpleton: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, arising out of his announcement about the White Paper on Capital Investment, about which he said

that arrangements could be made through the usual channels, whether, when the arrangements are made, there will be some arrangement of the Debate so that some part of the time will be concentrated on the question of the housing programme which is causing considerable concern?

Mr. Morrison: I got the idea from Press reports that there is concern about the housing aspect, but I cannot very well make arrangements regarding the shape the Debate takes, because that is a matter for Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will have to take their chance, and I am sure Mr. Speaker will do his best to be fair between them.

Major Legge-Bourke: Referring to Thursday's and Friday's Business, would not the Leader of the House agree that events are moving with considerable rapidity in Palestine, and it is most important that when the Debate takes place the Government's decision in the matter should have been carefully considered and that, as the statement is really most urgent, it should be made before the Debate takes place?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the situation is being, and will be, very carefully considered but it is not quite consistent for him to ask us to give very careful consideration and then to press us to make a statement earlier than might be consistent with the position.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: In view of the important nature of the Motion on the Order Paper for Wednesday about the declaration of confidential information, can the Leader of the House say what are the arrangements for that day and what time will be allotted to it.

[That, if in any case hereafter a Member shall have been found guilty by this House of corruptly accepting payment for the disclosure and publication of confidential information about matters to be proceeded with in Parliament, any person responsible for offering such payment shall incur the grave displeasure of this House; and this House will take such action as it may, in the circumstances, think fit.]

Mr. Morrison: That depends on the pleasure of the House. I was hoping it need not take long but it must depend


on what degree of controversy there is. As hon. Members will see, we have modified the Motion and I was hoping either it could be agreed to or that it would go through pretty expeditiously. On the other hand, if strong views should eventuate I should not be able to help it, but, honestly, I do not think it need take too much time.

Sir W. Wakefield: Are we to understand from the reply of the Lord President of the Council that, although a Debate was promised on the accounts of the three Air Corporations, that Debate is not now going to take place?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman will tell me who made the promise, and when, I will have a look at it, but I am pretty clear that I never made it.

Sir W. Wakefield: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation gave that specific undertaking to the House.

Mr. Morrison: If he did, he ought to have consulted the Leader of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Substitution of references to two sessions and one year for references to three sessions and two years respectively.)

4.0 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from "effect," to "as," in line 8, and to insert
with regard to any Bill introduced after the passing of this Act.
The Clause would then read:
The Parliament Act, 1911, shall have effect with regard to any Bill introduced after the passing of this Act as if—
—certain Amendments had been made. The words proposed to be added are not essential. The result would be the same if the words we propose to delete were deleted and nothing was put in their place, but we have put down the words to be added so that there may be no doubt about the meaning of the Clause as so amended. I will begin by stating one or two things which I feel sure will command universal acceptance and develop my arguments from them. We would all agree that it is still unusual to have words such as:
… deemed to have had effect from—
—a certain date—inserted in any legislation. In other words, retrospective legislation is unusual, and any proposal to make such legislation ought to be justified by a good reason. I do not propose to rehearse the well-known arguments against retrospective legislation, but I shall command pretty universal assent if I say that the more important the subject matter of the Bill, the more important must be the reason for making it retrospective in effect. When we come to a Bill which upsets the balance of the Constitution


and takes a long step towards single-chamber Government, there ought to be an overwhelming reason stated before this House is asked to accept that proposal.
One must have in mind that, unlike the great majority of other nations, we in this House and Parliament have precisely the same procedure for the most minor alteration of the law as for the most important constitutional amendments; moreover, our system of election is such that there may be no majority in this country although there is a large majority in this House. For both those reasons it seems essential that whatever be the strict letter of the law with regard to the making of constitutional changes, a Government with a sense of responsibility ought to use procedure of this kind very sparingly and with discretion. I find it almost incredible that any Government would seek to ante-date a constitutional change if the true purpose of the Bill were to amend or to improve our Constitution, but if the purpose of the Bill is something quite different, if the Bill itself is just a dodge to achieve an ulterior object by a subterfuge, the reason for this retroactive proposal becomes quite obvious.
The gist of this Debate would therefore seem to be a searching on our part—and, I hope, an answer on the part of the Government—for what is behind this retroactive provision. What is the real reason why the Government want it? An unusual provision of this sort can only be justified by putting forward very specific reasons. I have searched the Debates which have already occurred on this Bill in order to find such a reason. I find no real indication of the reasons in the Lord President's opening, but when I come to the Home Secretary, from whom we always expect and get candour, I find that he has given us a reason. He has not dissented from the view that the real reason for this is connected with the nationalisation of iron and steel and he added that perhaps there might be some other need for it; and that was as far as he went.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) dealt with the matter at somewhat greater length. I will remind the Committee of what he said. I will not read it all but will quote a number of passages, in a way which I do not

think alters the sense. I think it right to say I am doing that.
He said:
I would have preferred to see iron and steel in the programme… My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his opening speech this Session, pledged this Parliament to deal with iron and steel…
He went on:
Had the steel Bill been introduced this Session the need for the use of the Parliament Act as it was passed might have arisen, but no need would have arisen for tinkering with it.
A few lines later he said:
I regard this as a very doubtful political expedient on which we are entering this Session…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 897–8.]
That confirms the view I have already expressed about the real reason for this proposal. I find that a back bench hon. Member, the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), who is in the habit of speaking with candour, made it quite clear that in his view the whole point of this proposal was to get the iron and steel Bill through in this Parliament. The great majority of hon. Members on the other side would agree with that statement of view. I therefore propose to address myself to this proposal on the footing that it has only been justified, and could only be justified, in view of the iron and steel nationalisation programme.
It would be out of Order, and I would not attempt it, to argue whether nationalising iron and steel is a good thing or not and I will try to keep scrupulously away from any such argument, but I am entitled to say that it is admittedly not a Measure necessary to deal with the present economic crisis.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If any hon. Member says "no," he has to meet the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that industry is an efficient industry and to explain away the hesitation of his own Front Bench to introduce the necessary legislation. I cannot see how any one can say that a Measure which is not to be introduced, so far as we can see, until October, 1948, can possibly be a Measure calculated to deal with the present economic crisis, which one would hope might be on the mend by that time. One would at least have thought that anything to deal with that, would now have been before us.
If my argument so far is right, why are we not taking the straightforward course of having the iron and steel Bill this year? Why are we asked to adopt this subterfuge in order to get it on the Statute Book at the same date as it would get on the Statute Book if introduced now on the footing that it is a Bill which another place will not accept? Of course, I have not seen the Bill yet. We do not know what it is. I doubt if the Government know what it is to be. Therefore, all this discussion must be hypothetical on the footing that the Bill will be one which creates a conflict. I must put my argument on that view because it is only on that hypothetical view that this Bill has been introduced at all. It is no good saying that there is a lack of time. It is quite clear that this year we have a great deal less to do than we had last year, and it is equally clear that, as the crisis goes on, we may well find ourselves next Session in a much worse position than we are this Session. Therefore it is no good saying that it would be impossible to squeeze that Bill into the present Parliamentary session.
If that is so, I can only think of three possible reasons why this roundabout procedure has to be adopted, and perhaps we shall be told which of these three reasons is the true one. The first would be that the Government do not know their own minds yet, that they have no plan at all. That may well be. The second would be that they have two competing plans and cannot make up their minds between them yet. That may also be. The third, which is also a possibility although I hope it is not true, is that this method is adopted in order to conceal from the country until the last possible moment what are their proposals, in order that the country may have as short a time as possible to realise the implications of those proposals.

Mr. Bowles: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider a fourth reason for this? Obviously the iron and steel trade is working much harder than ever before under the certain threat of nationalisation during this Parliament. It is, therefore, under this certain threat of nationalisation coming along next Session and the certainty that this Bill having gone through, the iron and steel industry will be nationalised by the end of 1951.

Mr. Reid: It is an odd theory that the threat of nationalisation improves the efficiency of an industry. But supposing it does, would it not be much more effective if we had the actual Bill here rather than a mere promise of it? If the promise of a Bill spurs on an industry, surely a Bill presented to them would spur it on twice as fast? Therefore, while dissenting from the hon. Gentleman's premises, I would have thought that his conclusion does not follow from such a premise. We must probe this matter because it is the heart of this Amendment. We have to find the reason why this extremely unusual form of legislation is being thrust upon the House. The Government claim that they have a mandate to do this—a very odd mandate, when it will have taken them three years to find out what their mandate really is.
If they had a mandate, I would have expected them to produce their proposals by this time and so avoid the necessity for this proposal. But what happens? The Government take three years to make up their minds about what is going into the Bill, and then the public have only a few months to make up theirs. Not even 12 months, because, as the Home Secretary well knows in present circumstances, it is not possible for the public to get a full view of the implications of a Bill until that Bill is in Committee. A Second Reading Debate is only inadequately reported—it is impossible to blame the newspapers for that—and it is only when you can get day after day reports of the implications coming out, not in the whole Press but in certain organs of the Press, and you can get persons specially interested buying the proceedings in Committee, that you can get a full view of what a Bill will really do.
I do not think the Home Secretary would dissent from that. That after all is the justification for the considerable time we spend on the Committee stage of important Bills—that you can not only see what the Bill says but what are its implications. Supposing there is a Second Reading in, say, October or November, its implications are not beginning to get out until the following spring. Yet under this proposal the Bill will be thrust into law in the following autumn. Six months maybe, and no more, are allowed to elapse after the proposals have been fully developed and before they have been thrust into law.


4.15 p.m.
Why is this necessary if the Government have any faith in their proposals? I should have thought it would have been much better, if they believe in their proposals, and believe that they will be rejected by another place, for them to be able to go to the country when the time comes and say, "Here is an admirable scheme which has been held up and is not yet law. Will you show in no uncertain way your view upon the question?" A Government which had any belief whatever in the country accepting their proposals, would have welcomed that possible, ground for appealing to the electorate. Why, therefore, is it necessary that we should make preparations for smuggling a Bill of first-class importance through this House and past public opinion in a minimum of time, particularly when it is a scheme about which the Government themselves seem to be doubtful, and a scheme on which they do not seem to be at all keen to face the electorate? For these two reasons, apparently, they are asking us to adopt this shortened procedure to deal with this Bill because that, I am quite sure from all that has been said throughout the controversy, particularly on the other side, is the state of affairs.
I have to assume for the purpose of the present argument, that ultimately there will be only one year's delay. When the appropriate time comes, the arguments against that will be developed and we shall have an opportunity, no doubt, of dividing on that point; but at the moment my argument must proceed on the footing that in normal times, it would be proper only to have one year's delay. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is no time to introduce that shortened period for public consideration. Next year, when the period begins to run, it is obvious that the preoccupation of almost everybody in the country will be to find enough food to eat, and people will not be able to devote to the consideration of wide public issues that time and attention which is normally, fortunately, devoted to these matters by the informed public opinion of this country.
Yet it is in these difficult circumstances, and at a time when newspapers are short of newsprint, when it is almost impossible to get a book or a pamphlet published within any reasonable time—when, in other words, longer and not shorter time

should be given to the public for the consideration of crucial issues, that the Government are asking us to shorten the period for the proper consideration of legislation. The one year will run from now, if this Amendment is not accepted. I do not believe that these offending words could have been inserted in this Bill by anyone who truly believes in the working of democracy, if we take the meaning of democracy as commonly accepted in the Western world.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) seems to me to have put forward some entirely inconsequential and, indeed, contradictory arguments, and he has said hardly anything in support of the Amendment. He has again traversed in some detail some of the arguments we hard in the Second Reading Debate. I should think that, so far from this being a Measure which had not received adequate attention in the Press, it was one of the Measures which had received a great deal of attention in all parts of the Press during the last few months. May I remind hon. Members opposite that it was not only debated very fully on Second Reading, but was also discussed at great length in the Debate on the Address.

Mr. Reid: I think the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has completely misapprehended my argument. The Measure which I said would not receive adequate public attention if this Amendment was not accepted, is not this Measure, but the steel Bill.

Mr. Fletcher: That was certainly not clear from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and I do not think anyone on this side of the Committee understood that to be so. I thought we were considering the Parliament Bill, and that is what I propose to address a few remarks upon. The whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations proceeded on what I think to be the entirely false assumption that this Bill is introduced merely for some limited and specific purpose. Everyone would agree that the iron and steel measure is a matter which, when introduced next Session, will very conveniently fall within the ambit of the amended Parliament Act. But whether it does or does not, I think we should consider this


Bill on its own merits. It is irrelevant to suggest that we should only consider it and its so-called retrospective provisions on the footing that the steel Bill may be introduced next year.
This is a constitutional Measure, and one of the advantages of our flexible constitution is that we can deal with Measures relating to the Constitution in the same way as we deal with all other Measures involving legislation, great or small. Anyone would think that there was something sacrosanct about the Parliament Act of 1911, but it has been changed before. During the war and the previous war it was amended when the life of Parliament was lengthened.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: That is one thing the Parliament Act could not do—it could not vary the length of a Parliament each year.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could have been following what I said. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Parliament Act. It can be changed, just like any other Act of Parliament and it was, in fact, amended——

Mr. Henry Strauss: No.

Mr. Fletcher: I speak subject to correction, but I think I am right in saying that an Act was passed during the last Parliament in order to extend the life of that Parliament.

Sir C. Headlam: But that provision never came under the Parliament Act at all. It was expressly excluded.

Mr. Fletcher: May I remind the Committee that one of the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, was that there should be a newly elected House of Commons every five years—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. I think it is right to say that prior to 1911 the life of Parliament was for seven years. One of the constitutional changes made by the Parliament Act was that henceforth there would be a new House of Commons elected every five years. That was a matter which gave certain rights to the electorate as distinct from the House of Commons. Although that was an essential feature of the Constitution as laid down

in 1911, that particular feature of the 1911 Act was itself changed more than once by Measures passed to extend the life of the House of Commons. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of the 1911 Act are just as susceptible to modification by a subsequent Act as any other Act of Parliament. I approach this matter on the footing that if it is desirable to make changes in our Constitution we should do so as we have done hitherto, by making them on their merits.

Mr. H. Strauss: Will the hon. Member address himself to this point? Does he know of any precedent in a constitutional Measure for making any part of its operation retrospective? Is there any precedent which he has discovered for that?

Mr. Fletcher: I am perfectly prepared to deal with as many points as I can, to the degree which interruptions of hon. Members opposite enable me, but I should think it would involve a good deal of historical research to enable me to answer that question, although I do not think that research would be unfruitful. I think there are plenty of precedents in the evolution of our Constitution for making changes when they are required to adapt our Constitution to the requirements of the time——

Sir C. Headlam: Retrospective?

Mr. Fletcher: —whether retrospective or not. There is nothing inherently wrong about legislation being retrospective. Legislation may be criticised on the ground that it is retrospective if it produces hardship on an individual, and changes his rights or obligations; if it creates a crime which had not been a crime before. I could imagine a good many arguments being addressed on the ground that one ought not to give retrospective application to new criminal Measures. If, however, it is desirable to make a change in our Constitution, which the House and the country think is a good change to make on its merits, I should think that the sooner it is made the better.
This House by the Vote on Second Reading have decided that in 1947 we have arrived at a period when the suspensory power of the House of Lords ought to be reduced from two years to one year, because the whole tempo of modern life has changed to such a degree


that it is not safe to permit another place to have the power to thwart or delay carrying out the wishes of the people for more than one year. I doubt whether one year is not itself too long, but we have agreed that there must be a change and that the period of the suspensory veto must be reduced. If it is a good thing to do that, I should think the sooner the provision comes into operation, the better. I should not think that a priori there is any objection to making the provisions of this Bill retrospective on that ground.

Mr. Bowles: Surely the provision my hon. Friend is talking about need not be retrospective at all if this Bill goes through this year. It is only if the House of Lords hold it up and make it a two-year period that it would become retrospective. The Opposition cannot object to that.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher: I was coming to that, but I was trying to deal with what I thought to be the more inconsequential observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) will make his own contribution to the Debate in due course, and will develop the point he has just made, and point out that this matter may become entirely unnecessary.
As to whether there is anything wrong in legislation being retrospective, it might be criticised if it gave rise to uncertainty. Here, one of the advantages, I should have thought, to the country and to the community was that the definite provisions in the Bill, making it retrospective if necessary, helped towards certainty rather than uncertainty, because the effect of these words which the Amendment seeks to omit, is to make it quite clear that if this Bill is passed by this House, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911, that is to say, if it is passed in three successive Sessions, then whether or not it is approved in another place, it will thereby, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, become law. I should have thought that it was equally desirable that the country should know that it would operate with regard to all Bills that are introduced hereafter, whether in this Session or the next Session. For those reasons, I hope that this Amendment will be resisted by the Committee.

Sir Arthur Salter: I do not think we can rationally discuss the import and importance of this Amendment if we keep within the narrow limits suggested by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). It is quite impossible to discuss this provision that the Bill should be retrospective in its effect if we are not allowed to have in our minds, and to refer to the fact, that it is related to a future proposed Bill, namely, that for the nationalisation of iron and steel. Nor do I think that we can adequately assess the importance of this particular point about the retrospective character of the Bill unless we have in mind the other two features to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, namely, the constitutional procedure generally in this Bill and its particular application to a particular case.
It is an extraordinary achievement that the Government, in a short Bill, which has only one Clause, apart from the technical Title Clause, should have managed to make in it so big a breach in three of our principal constitutional and Parliamentary traditions. The first is in regard to constitutional legislation. In countries which have a written constitution a different legislative procedure is provided for the amendment of the constitution—a two-thirds majority, etc. We have no such difference. We have exactly the same legal procedure, but it has always been the custom that in bringing in a Bill affecting the Constitution and the balance of the Constitution, special care, preparations and precautions should be taken. I will not weary the House by going through the whole of the long history of conferences, commissions and careful prior discussions and consideration before a constitutional Bill has been introduced. This Bill, as we know, is a complete breach in that tradition.
In the second place, it is against our normal principles, except for very cogent and decisive exceptional reasons, to make legislation retrospective. This is a retrospective Bill. In the third place, it is against our traditions to have particular legislation in the sense that a general Bill is introduced with the special purpose of applying to a particular named individual or to a known particular case. I believe it was once the case that this Parliament passed an Act for the purpose of boiling in oil a named individual.

Mr. Pickthorn: Not in oil. They did not go so far as that.

Sir A. Salter: At any rate, it was boiling or burning. It is quite true that that may be quoted as a precedent, but it seems to me to be the kind of exception that proves the rule, because no constitutional writer has ever dealt with that aspect of our traditions without quoting that case as something which must, in all circumstances, be avoided. We thus have, in this short Bill of a few lines, a breach in the normal tradition as regards constitutional tradition, retrospective legislation and particular legislation. I suggest that, cumulatively, this is really an extraordinary achievement. The hon. Member for East Islington said that we ought to look at this Bill on its merits; why could we not devote ourselves simply to the question of whether this is a good or bad Bill from the point of view of the general change in the constitution? For the simple reason, that every hon. Member knows that the Government themselves have not done so; if they had been considering whether or not it was a good thing for the purpose of amending our constitution for general purposes, they would not have introduced this Bill in this form or at this moment.

Mr. Blackburn: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could deal with a point which has puzzled me a great deal? Lord Salisbury stated in the House of Lords that another place would not utilise its powers to prevent the putting on the Statute Book of any Measure for which the Government in power had an election mandate. Quite clearly, this Government have an election mandate for the nationalisation of steel. If Lord Salisbury and the Lords fulfil that promise, there will be no question whatever of their vetoing a Bill for the nationalisation of steel.

Sir A. Salter: That question had better be addressed to someone who represents the party of which Lord Salisbury is the representative in another place. I am dealing with this Bill in the form in which it is now presented to us, and in the circumstances in which it is presented to us in the House of Commons. I suggest that, introduced as it is, in the form in

which it is, and in the circumstances in which it has been introduced, it does, in its few lines, constitute a breach in these three important and fundamental traditions in our constitutional and Parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), in moving the Amendment, referred to what he thought was the reason for the introduction of the Bill. He said it was concerned only with the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. It is obvious that if this provision to make it retrospective had not been put in, the Government could not be certain that they would, within the lifetime of this Parliament, be able to make effective a Bill for the nationalisation of iron and steel. Therefore, the motive of the Opposition in moving this Amendment is quite clearly to take every possible opportunity to "dish" the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. We intend to get that Measure through. We have a mandate from the electors to do it, and this is the last possible Session in which the Government can bring in any Bill to amend the Parliament Act so as to have any useful results so far as our electoral programme is concerned. As this is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, I should like to congratulate the. Government on bringing in the Bill.
The Prime Minister gave a promise early in this Session that this Government were to nationalise iron and steel before this Parliament ended. Quite clearly that had a salutary effect on the industry, for the reason which I tried to give a few minutes ago. Here we have an industry which probably—I do not say this unkindly—is trying to avoid nationalisation by putting itself into the most efficient condition it can, and trying to create an atmosphere, so that if we had to go to the country on the question of the nationalisation of steel at the next election it could be said that it was not so urgent. I am quite convinced that this is the right time for this Bill to be got through.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Since this great effort which the steel industry has made must have been contributed to tremendously by the workers themselves, does the hon. Gentleman put before the Committee the idea that the


workers in the steel industry are working hard to try to prevent nationalisation? I believe that they are.

Mr. Bowles: No, I do not. I certainly think that the management are pulling more weight than ever before in the hope that, if this industry is not nationalised in this Parliament, they might persuade hon. Members at the next election that there was not quite such a case for it. I disagree somewhat with my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I do not want to nationalise industries because they are inefficient or efficient. I believe in the nationalisation——

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member is discussing nationalisation. That is not in the Bill. We are discussing retrospective action.

Mr. Bowles: This will only be retrospective if the House of Lords uses the whole of the two years allowed to it under the Parliament Act of 1911. If it lets this Bill go through, as it has let every other Bill go through in the last two years, then there can be no complaint about this being retrospective. There was a suggestion in the speech of the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that never had he known, in any of our legislation, reference to a Bill that might be passed later. I have made a study of the Local Government Bill which is to come into force on 1st April, 1948. The senior Burgess will find there that there is provision for another Bill which has been produced since that was introduced, namely the National Assistance Bill. The provisions transfer from the local authorities to the National Assistance Board certain liabilities which, up to 1st April, 1948, will fall upon the local authorities.

Sir A. Salter: I carefully did not say that there was no precedent for retrospective legislation. I said that I did not think there was precedent for retrospective legislation of a kind which affected the balance of the Constitution. My argument was in very definite relation to my first point. Parliament has always been particularly careful in the case of constitutional legislation.

Mr. Bowles: The remedy is in the hands of the Opposition. They need not hold up the passing of this Bill, and then there will be no retrospective action at all. In

connection with our social services, the Government have introduced two Bills in this Session. One is the Local Government Bill which arises because of various things, such as the beginning of the National Health Service in July. The other is the National Assistance Bill. These Bills cannot all be introduced on the same day. There is nothing wrong in a Bill being introduced which refers to the likelihood of another Bill being passed in this Session, and the economic and financial effects of that new Bill being legislated for in the Bill that will go through Parliament before the other to which it refers.
I think that this Amendment is a clever move on the part of the Opposition, but I do not think that it has fooled any of my hon. Friends on his side of the Committee. We want this provision because we want the steel Bill at the earliest possible moment in this Session. Any subsequent legislation to be passed in this Session will go through under the new Parliament Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not quite clear whether we are debating the first Amendment only or also something else at the same time. As a result of the Division, I missed the first half minute or so of the proceedings.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing only the first Amendment.

4.45 P.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Might I ask your guidance, on that, Sir Robert? There is the other Amendment to line 20—to leave out the proviso—which raises exactly the same point, of what we have broadly described as the retroactive provisions of the Bill. I think everyone who has spoken, although they would have been in Order on either Amendment, has really meant to make a speech on the question of the retroactive provision. I should have thought that it would have been convenient to have had a general discussion and then for the Vote to be taken as you decide.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to do what is suggested. I have no objection to a general Debate on the two Amendments.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very much obliged. I apologise. It really was not my fault that I could not get back in time. That being so, I hope I may begin by making a few observations upon the speeches that have been made from the other side of the Committee, and then I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I say something on what seems to me to be the great matter involved. First of all, the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) told us that this Bill had had a great deal of attention in the Press. That seems to show how rapidly ones standards go down hill. If he and I stopped the first 100 people that we could meet "in and out the Eagle," or somewhere else in Islington, I wonder how many of them would have heard of this Bill?

Mr. E. Fletcher: Most of the people in my constituency have heard of it and approve of it.

Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Gentleman can believe that, he really can believe anything. I leave the point.

Mr. James Hudson: His constituency is different from that of the senior Burgess.

Mr. Pickthorn: He also objected to what he called gratuitous assumptions that there is some specific occasion for this Bill. I think it fair to say that there is always a specific occasion for any suggested change of the Constitution, and I think it perfectly clear from the Second Reading Debate that that was generally recognised to be so in this case. Then he told us that there was nothing sacrosanct about the 1911 Act, because it had been amended during the war. But it was amended in one particular only and that is the particular about which I think I am right in saying there has only been legislation in time of extreme national danger. It was only at the time of the 1715 Rebellion and threatened invasion, at the time of the 1914 war and at the time of the last war, that Parliament has done these things which, logically, are an extreme and even excessive stretch of Parliamentary power—that is to say, that Parliament has lengthened its own life. The Parliament Act was not amended in the 1939 war, only technically it was in spite of the maximum Parliamentary duration as then fixed in the 1911 Act.
Then we were told by him that the retrospective effect in the Bill made for more certainty. That, surely, is the most dangerous possible doctrine, especially from a lawyer. Surely, the most certainty in everything to do with Statute law must always come from the Statute law being what it is to be only from the exact moment at which the process of making the Statute is completed, or some later moment then and there announced. We do not always get that degree of certainty, I agree; but that, surely, must be the degree of certainty which everybody, particularly every lawyer, desires in passing a Bill.
It really will not do for the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) to tell us that this Bill will be retrospective only if the action of another place makes it so. It has some slight element of retrospection even without that. In any case, it really is not fair to say to the other place "You have got to treat as being the Statute law as from the day before this Session began, something which was not then Statute law, or else we shall retrospectively make it the Statute law as from that date, and say that it was your fault." That, clearly, is a disingenuous argument. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman is being consciously dishonest in the matter, but I do not think that any impartial person can doubt but that is a disingenuous argument.
Now I want to come to what seems to be the main and great matter contained in these Amendments. I do so without any very great optimism but I do beg the Home Secretary to allow the argument—if I can make it—to impinge on his mind without wholly closing that mind. This is the point: The great distinction between States, is not what nowadays people are apt to call "Fascist" versus democratic; nowadays the word "Fascist" is a very loose description; none of us quite know what "Fascist" means, it has changed in all sorts of ways and senses; and "democratic" is also used roughly and loosely. In our history nobody would pretend that England was democratic before say 1906, or 1880, or about that time. Yet nobody can doubt that there was law and liberty, that there were things of great value and importance which we owed to our long constitutional development long before there was democracy.
The true distinction, the dichotomy if I may use a word recently introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in this matter is between constitutionalism on the one hand and arbitrariness on the other. That is what matters, not so much whether you are governed by a good constitution, or even whether you are self-governed, but whether you are governed by a constitution or by arbitrariness. That is the great distinction. That is the great question now before the world. We have tended to assume, with the poet Tennyson—though I do not quite use the word "constitutionalism"—that it has gone on getting bigger and bigger and bigger just as biology has gone on getting better and better and better in making its Way up from the amœba to the Home Secretary. In our generation we know it is pot sufficient to make those assumptions any longer. We do not know what the right hon. Gentleman may evolve into in the course of another eon or two and we do not know whether constitutional government is to survive in this world for a generation.
That is the first proposition which I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe. The second is this: that there is no other country in the world which in that dichotomy is on the constitutional side, there is no one other country in the world which would not regard what is here being done as grossly and intolerably unconstitutional. You could not possibly persuade any American, even when you had made him understand the difference between the so-called fixed constitution of his own country and the so-called flexible constitution of our own, that in any sense of the word "constitutional" it could be called constitutional to alter the rules of the constitution as from some date before the procedure of making the alteration had been completed. I do not believe for one moment that you could persuade any American or any citizen of states which have experience of constitutional Government of the truth of that proposition.
Further, I want to say, with great diffidence, that I am by way of being a sort of expert on constitutional history; that is to say I have been paid for lecturing about it for a great many years. So I always make statements, especially general statements on constitutional sub-

jects, with the utmost diffidence, for I have found that when I have not looked up the books just before, I have often been proved wrong later, and that even when I have made some research, I have often been proved afterwards not to have been right. But I think I am on a safe point now when I say that the boast of the hon. Member below the Gangway that he had not looked up precedents but was sure that there were bundles of precedents for constitutional legislation with retrospective effect, is mistaken.

Sir A. Salter: May I reassure my hon. Friend on this point? I was a professor on the same subject for years and I can confirm what he says, that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) would not find his search fruitful.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am glad to have my pretensions supported by real learning. If the hon. Member opposite finds anything like what he thinks could be found, I would make this bet—if it were in Order—that it would prove to be a Bill which at the time was thought to be wholly declaratory. There have been Bills like the Bill making it plain that a Queen Regnant has the same rights and authority as a King, where it was enacted that that was so and always had been so. But that was declaratory and not retrospective. Apart from any ambiguities of that sort however, I am confident that there are no precedents for this at all. I am confident of this also: that none of our ancestors would have thought this Bill constitutional until, relatively speaking, the day before yesterday. I will go further. I believe that all our ancestors certainly down to the 28th century, and most of them during the 18th century would have taken it for granted that this Bill was ultra vires and had or would have been argued to have had no force.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but until now he has been dealing largely with Second Reading points.

Mr. Pickthorn: I will not continue that point of course Sir Robert, but with respect, this general argument about the constitutional importance of retrospectivity, if that is the word, has been the burden, almost the main burden of every speech which has been made so far. All I am trying to show is that all experience


outside this country and inside is in favour of these Amendments and none of it against these Amendments.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is the hon. Member now suggesting that a court of law in any circumstances has power to declare an Act of Parliament ultra vires?

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not say anything of the sort. I said "had or would have been thought to have had." [Laughter.] When medical Gentlemen opposite laugh they betray their ignorance of the matter as much as I should betray my ignorance of some clinical language they were using if I laughed at them. The judges would have said, "This will not work"——

Mr. Blackburn: Not one single judicial decision has established the doctrine to which the hon. Member just referred. The doctrine was that any law which contravened the moral law, that is, the jus naturale or jus gentium, might be ruled ultra vires. There was never any suggestion that retrospection might, in itself, become invalid.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should be out of Order if I examined that thesis. But I do not accept it at all. I still think that the point I was putting is nearer to accuracy than the one which has been suggested from the other side of the Committee. If these things are anything like true, then Members opposite really ought to consider that they ought not to say to people on this side, "All you are thinking of is defending iron and steel." That has been said at least once today. It is rare to take a strong view about a constitutional question purely for the sake of that question itself. Perhaps only those take a strong view in that way who are like myself more or less professional pedants in the matter. The rest of the world is interested almost always in constitutional questions only because of some immediate effect on current questions.
I beg the Home Secretary who in this matter is I know not altogether as the rest of the world, who has one foot on my side of the fence in that he is interested in the Constitution for its own sake, to consider whether at this point in world history it is not a rather dangerous thing that we should do something which would have been thought in our history until, historically speaking, the day before yesterday, to have been grossly unconstitutional

and which I do not believe any constitutionally minded foreigner could be persuaded to accept as constitutional. I ask him for further consideration whether it really is right to do this in order to get some small political advantage. After all, if it is true, as has been assumed by the other side in varying ways, that what really matters is to get an iron and steel Bill through, that could have been done by introducing an iron and steel Bill on the date on which this Bill was introduced.

5.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It might be as well at this stage if I intervened to give some idea of the views of the Government upon the argument that has been addressed to the Committee so far, but not with any idea that we are anxious to come to a decision on the matter at the moment. Several hon. Members have addressed the Committee, and it is only right that the Government should give some indication of their views. I hope the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) will not think that I have one leg on his side of the fence more than this, that I have, as I hope every Member of the Committee has, an interest in constitutional questions. I dissent from nearly everything that he said, and I was confirmed in that dissent when I found that it was confirmed so readily by the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter).

Sir A. Salter: Does the Home Secretary dissent from the only point, the limited and specific point on which, whether or not I agree with him on other matters, I expressed agreement with the senior Burgess for Cambridge University? Does the Home Secretary differ from me on that point, namely, that there are no precedents for retrospective legislation on constitutional Bills in this country?

Mr. Ede: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me time I will deal with the question of precedent and the extent to which the House is bound always to look for a precedent before it does the thing it knows to be right. The hon. Gentleman said that we could not persuade Americans about this matter, but we are not set the task of persuading Americans. Such conversations as I have had with citizens of the United States on this kind


of issue have usually been wound up by such citizens deploring the fact that they did not live under a Constitution as flexible as ours. I had the opportunity of meeting a good many of these gentlemen when I was at the Board of Education and when we were engaged in the task of erecting the body that is now known as U.N.E.S.C.O. I think that, during those discussions, without exception they expressed their dread of what might happen in their country after the war, bound as they were, particularly in foreign affairs, by the peculiar written and fixed Constitution under which they work.
We are not out to persuade Americans that the Bill is sound. Our task is the far easier one of persuading people in this country that this is an appropriate Amendment to make in our Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman said that when this country had previously contemplated a constitutional change, it had gone through certain processes. He suggested that the Bill ought to have been preceded by conferences. I assume he meant the kind of conference that was held prior to the passing of the Parliament Act, 1911.

Sir A. Salter: Or the Bryce Conference.

Mr. Ede: Let us recognise that both of those conferences were completely futile. The 1910 Conference used up a great part of the year 1910. A second General Election took place. The Parliament Bill was introduced. It was not agreed, as is quite evident to anyone who recollects the events of that time. Nothing was agreed at that time. The Bryce Committee met and made its recommendations about a new House of Lords, but nobody has taken any action on them in the time in between, although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in a position to implement the recommendations at any tune during nearly 20 years which have elapsed since the Committee reported. We did not think that precedents such as that were desirable ones for us to follow.
We have to face a practical issue and we have endeavoured to face it in this Measure. I, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, could not get into the Chamber for a couple of minutes at the beginning of the Debate because I thought the Opposition were, for once, going to divide upon the suspension of the Rule governing our hours. I was in the middle of the

queue in the Lobby and I did not get back until the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) was well launched into his speech. It is not fair to say that this side of the Committee attacked the other side by alleging that they oppose the Bill because they want to stop an iron and steel Bill going through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself devoted the greater part of his speech to examining the Bill in the light of the situation relating to iron and steel.
Therefore, although the senior Burgess for Cambridge University may not think it is much of an answer, we did not start on those lines at any rate. It may have been a wrong line for us to follow, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman subjected us to a very severe temptation in the line which he took. The Bill, as I said on the Second Reading, is required because we think its proposals represent the maximum powers that should be left to any second Chamber in this country. The subject would have been dealt with in the lifetime of this Parliament, had there been an iron and steel Bill or not. It is clear that no Government of the Left could contemplate in modern circumstances having to face a second Chamber, no matter what its constitution, armed with the powers that were left to another place by the Parliament Act, 1911.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On a point of Order, Sir Robert. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment. For the last five minutes he has been speaking on a general, Second Reading point as to the desirability of limiting the powers of the House of Lords. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I do not want to be offensive, but if he enlarges the sphere of the Debate, he will take it away from the point of our Amendment, and I feel bound to ask you to rule on this point.

The Deputy-Chairman: There has been a tendency for speeches to take on the character of a Second Reading Debate. I sincerely hope that Members will resist the temptation to wander too far from the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that I have so far done other than reply to points that have been raised on the other side. I certainly do not want to enlarge the scope


of the Debate. I do not think it is fair to describe the proposals in the Bill as retrospective. No Measure which has so far been sent to another place during the lifetime of this Parliament can come within the purview of this Measure. They have, sometimes after attempts at amendment to which they have attached importance, assented to all the Measures which have been sent up to them, but we have no guarantee that they will continue that line of conduct. They have not, so far, had big attendances, and difficulties arise when certain people not easily recognisable turn up to take part in the discussions and to vote, and, therefore, we may be faced at any time from now onwards with the position that a Measure to which this House attaches great importance and which it has sent up there is either, in the old word, "mangled," or is refused a passage during the Session in which it is sent up.
This is the last Session of this Parliament in which we can make any amendment with certainty of that position, and that is why we have introduced this Bill. Instead of its being retrospective, I should have thought that the correct description would have been to say that any Bill that may be brought within the Parliament Act as amended will be subjected to parallel action of the kind we are taking with regard to the Parliament Act, and both Houses of Parliament and the country will know from this time forward that, on the assumption which we are entitled to make, that this Parliament will last until some time in 1950, any Measure introduced into this House and passed by it up to some point in the middle of 1949 will become the law of the land if this House continues to favour it. That is not retrospective action, but it is giving a clear indication to both Houses and to the country of what our position in this matter really is, and what the constitutional position will be before this Parliament ends.
I do not want to go into the suggestions made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to what has happened about an iron and steel Bill. He thought there were three things. First, the Government had not made up their minds; secondly, they had got so far towards making up their minds about two different plans and could not possibly decide which of the two it should be;

or, thirdly, that they meant to have a Bill pushed through rapidly so that the country would not know anything about it. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to believe everything he sees on the tape on the morning after the Cabinet has risen, because I go there to find out all the things that we have not discussed. I would not like, under pledge of Cabinet secrecy, to go further than that as to the reliability of that information.
The Government are pledged to deal with iron and steel, and they regard it as essential that iron and steel should be dealt with in the lifetime of this Parliament. They are determined not to be thwarted in that direction by allowing the time to lapse beyond which these powers to control the future activities of the House of Lords can be made effective. We think that 12 months is a sufficient time for the House of Lords to be able to delay our legislation. We think that that should be made effective with regard to all Bills which have been introduced or will be introduced as from the beginning of this Session, and, therefore, we ask the House to reject this Amendment, so as to enable the decisions that I have just announced to be made effective within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Sir A. Salter: The right hon. Gentleman indicated that he had precedents, and added that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and I agreed on any point, we were almost certain to be wrong. The only point on which we did express agreement was in disagreement with the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) on this point—that there were precedents for retrospective constitutional legislation.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have made no claim that there is any precedent. I do not regard the first Socialist Government with a majority as being bound to look for precedents for what it wants to do, and when I am told, as I think I was by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, what our ancestors would think of this Bill constitutionally, I am left completely unmoved, because I take the view which Macaulay expressed at the time of the passing of the first great Reform Bill, that our ancestors were wiser in their generation than we are, inasmuch as they legislated for their times. We are legislating


for our times, and one of the glories of this House is that it is not so bound by a written Constitution, other than the Parliament Act, that it is compelled to look for a precedent in order to justify itself in departing from the folly of its ancestors.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman has just indulged in what he will perhaps allow me to describe as a most uncharacteristic evasion of the real point in this Amendment, and has sought to lead us on to the general argument for the Bill which we heard from him on Second Reading. Our point is that this Amendment raises quite sharply a true Committee point of great importance, which cannot be laughed off by a repetition of a Second Reading speech, and I want to deal with it in its two compartments—first, the broad constitutional position, and, secondly, its relation to what I may call fellow travellers among the Government's Bills for the next year or two.
The right hon. Gentleman agrees to this extent, that this makes a change in the Constitution, and he also agrees, despite his tendentious flourish of trumpets, that ordinary practice and precedent, so far as it can be discovered, is that Bills which make a change in the Constitution take effect from the date on which they are passed. Our point is this. It is quite true that, with an omnipotent Legislature such as ours, the citizen takes his chance and must always conduct his life and business bearing in mind the chance of a change as to his future. He should not have to take the risk of what is now the fixed and determined legal basis of his personal actions being destroyed by retroactive future proposals. That is a constitutional concept which the right hon. Gentleman need not fear as being reactionary or Right Wing. It is a constitutional concept which democracies, just as every other form of State, have valued as giving certainty to the present action of their citizens of all classes and of all types.
The right hon. Gentleman, even for his own argument, need not be so contemptuous of the working of the British Constitution. One thing, which I think that even he might approach with some feeling of gratitude, is that it has grown through change and has been adapted

through the action of conciliatory minds. A great deal of the happiness and improvement of the position of this country have been due to that constitutional action. Therefore, when he brushes aside, with unusual brusquerie, any suggestions about the common practice of consultation before political change, I think he might realise that our constitutional position has not only improved, but has improved without serious difficulty, through the use of incidents being formed into precedents in the moulding of the unwritten Constitution which we have.
All that we are asking by this Amendment is not even to go as far as the ordinary decencies of constitutional change, that is, consultation. We are only suggesting that it is wise to use and apply the existing conditions, the existing law, and to use the time which existing law lays down as being proper for a novel and new conception to be introduced. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that he has only in mind—and only as much in mind as the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends have driven into his mind—something like the iron and steel Bill. Under this provision, if another of the kaleidoscopic changes were to take place in the opinions of the Front Bench opposite, and if, for example, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President were to resume the views which he held 10 years ago and suggest that British Colonial possessions should be handed to an international authority, and, for that purpose, bring in a new Statute of Westminster affecting British Colonies, that could be dealt with under this Bill and be tacked on and in the pocket of the present Bill.
Therefore, when we begin, on constitutional matters of that kind, not only to ignore the decencies and conciliations which have hitherto taken place before constitutional changes were made, but to ignore the basis of existing law and existing fact as the ground of our action, we are running a grave risk of something which may react, as I shall endeavour to show, far beyond the merely party or economic differences which separate us in this Chamber at the present time.
The other point on which the right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to shake me is that the real purpose of this Bill is not what my right hon. Friend stated, and, in fact, that the Title could far more


appositely be "Steel Nationalisation (Facilitation) Bill." I do not want to resume the good-humoured exchange which I had with the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President about the famous paragraph in the "New Statesman," because I was so pleased with the right hon. Gentleman's response, that he had no greater connection with the "New Statesman" than with the "Recorder," that I should like to keep that framed in my mind, unblemished by any alteration or change.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We are both speaking from memory, but I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman unwittingly to get me into trouble. My recollection is that I said I had no greater responsibility for the "New Statesman" than for the "Recorder." That is true.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am always gathering something. I shall now have to consider the subtle difference between responsibility and connection. I will keep it; it will come in useful at some time. The right hon. Gentleman and I are not, I hope, having our last exchange across this Table.
As I say, I had dealt with that point, but we on this side of the Committee must take it as our hypothesis that the present Bill is going to take two years to pass into law. It is no good hon. Members trying to score a debating point by saying, "Well, that need not happen." That is the whole basis; the conditional Clause which we are discussing at the moment introduces provisions. Therefore, to discuss it on any other basis would be wrong, and would ignore what is in the Bill.
I want hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to appreciate our point. The purpose of any delaying power in a Second Chamber is to allow public opinion to crystallise on the Bill. I do not think there was any dispute about that from any part of the House during the Second Reading Debate. When the Bill which is now before the Committee is so intimately connected with the steel nationalisation Bill that the steel Bill is carried in the pocket of this very proviso, it is impossible for the public of this country to form an opinion and

let it crystallise until they know what is in the Bill for the nationalisation of steel.
What we are discussing at the moment is whether or not we should make a pocket to carry the steel nationalisation Bill through at an earlier date. That is what this provision is for, and that is what it does. As I have said, we cannot crystallise public opinion as to whether the provision is right until we know something about the proposals with regard to the nationalisation of iron and steel. The public are not going to get these proposals for another year, so that, during that time, they cannot crystallise or form their judgment on this Bill. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot put the matter, as they so often do, on what one might term the "crisis" argument, because, if there were any short-term reason for the nationalisation of iron and steel, then the Bill for that purpose would be introduced now.
It seems to me to be the acme of absurdity that a Government who themselves require three years to allow their own views and opinions, and the divisions between Members of the Cabinet, to crystallise—and, they hope, to subside—on the matter of iron and steel, should expect the general public of this country to be able to form and crystallise its opinion in six months.

Mr. Bowles: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will read his own Amendment he will see that it says:
with regard to any Bill introduced after the passing of this Act.
He has already told the Committee that this Bill will not become an Act for at least two years because he knows that the other place will oppose it. Is he, therefore, now saying to the Committee and to the country that we in this Parliament will never be able, unless we win on this particular Clause, to nationalise steel during the lifetime of this Parliament?

5.30 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member has made one complete misstatement. I hope he will pay attention to it. I did not say that the House of Lords was going to throw out this Bill. I particularly said that we must approach this Clause on the hypothesis that the Bill will take two years to pass. I know the hon. Gentleman would not want to misquote me and it is rather unfortunate


if what he said is quoted as coming from me, without my reply.

Mr. Bowles: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept for the sake of his argument that this Bill will not become an Act until 1949?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is part of my argument. I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates the point, and I will be very glad to hear his answer to it. Assume that the iron and steel Bill is introduced in November, 1948—I take it the hon. Gentleman is with me as far as that—that Bill could not possibly get through the Committee stage, with a reasonable discussion, before about Easter, 1949. It could not get through the Report and Third Reading until about May, 1949. That means that a member of the public is going to get six months in which to form his opinion and let that opinion crystalise on the final form of an iron and steel Bill, if this procedure is adopted.
The point I was making—and whether the hon. Gentleman agrees or not it is surely a fair point—is that if it takes His Majesty's Government three years to come to a conclusion as to whether they are going to nationalise iron and steel, and what form it should take, it is a little hard to change the Constitution so that ordinary people who have not the advantages of the Government should have only six months in which to crystallise their opinion.

Mr. Bowles: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer this question. Obviously, he does admit that this will not become the Parliament Act until 1949. Any steel nationalisation Bill introduced, as he suggested, in November, 1948—and he has just told us about the six months—will obviously not go through under this Amendment of his, because it will not have been a Bill introduced after the passing of the Act of 1949. Therefore, the Government are not going to be expected to go through all the foolery of getting the Bill discussed when they know it is not going through. They would have to wait until the next Session started in 1949 to pass a steel nationalisation Bill, with the General Election in 1950. That is the whole motive of the Opposition.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has this time delivered himself into

our hands in spite of his astuteness, which is a byword in so many circles. He has forgotten the vital provision of the Parliament Act, 1911, that it operates after a General Election.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles rose——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not going to give way. I am going to follow up the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has lifted his guard and must take what is coming. Let us face the position to which the hon. Gentleman has exposed himself. If the Bill was introduced, as I put it in the hypothesis, in November, 1948, then it would come for a Third Reading in the House about May or June, 1949. Continuing the hypothesis that my Amendment operates and that Bill is, therefore, not carried in the pocket of this Bill, we have the position that there will be a General Election by the summer of 1950. There are only two alternatives. One is that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not want this Bill to be submitted to the electorate at a General Election.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that follows as clearly as night follows the day. The Bill is introduced—and that is inherent in the hon. Gentleman's argument—in the expectation of losing the next General Election.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles rose——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not going to give way. I am going to follow this argument.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles rose——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, I must follow the argument out. The hon. Gentleman can make another speech, he is not restricted. It is correct constitutional practice and also common sense, that if the Government, in the belief that they are going to lose the next General Election—and that is the only explanation of this offered by the Parliament Act—seize the opportunity to pass legislation when they know the country is against it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it is—that follows from the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are going to lose the next General Election—it is a false concept of democracy. I put it further—

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles rose——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, the hon. Gentleman must learn to take an argu-


ment when it is put to him. He put this opinion and I am trying to answer it. The hon. Gentleman must learn to take it when it comes from the other side.
The Home Secretary rather deprecated going into the constitutional niceties of the matter. I do put this point to him because I am sure it is one he must have considered, that, taking it by and large with very few exceptions—this is not a party point but a recollection of history as I understand the matter—there have been very few occasions where a change has been from Left to Right, or Right to Left, when an incoming Government has immediately indulged in repealing the legislation of their predecessors, however strongly they have opposed them, or have been against them at the time. That, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, is a fact. It is a very helpful fact, I suggest, but I do not ask to carry the hon. Gentlemen opposite with me. The basis of that has been that every Government, so far, has accepted it as a rule that they should not permit legislation unless they are satisfied that they are supported by Parliamentary opinion. Here we have—and the hon. Gentleman must face this point—the provision of the Parliamentary Act, 1911, that it operates whether a General Election comes into existence or not. In that case if the Government think that they are going to lose the General Election, they should not introduce the iron and steel Bill at all, not only according to constitutional practice, but according to every canon of decency and order. Therefore, we say that on the general constitutional position, we ought to keep the certainty which is given by the basic and determined use of existing law.
On the practical point—that is, of carrying another Bill alongside it—this Clause has two inevitable effects; first, it will prevent public opinion from having an apportunity to crystallise, even to the extent of one-sixth of the opportunity which the Government have found necessary before their own opinion could be formed; and, secondly, it is changing that salutary constitutional principle that one does not introduce legislation when one is doubtful whether one can face the electorate on that legislation. For those reasons, I ask the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bowles: I had not forgotten the provision in the Parliament Act, 1911, which says that a General Election can take place during the period of those two years. What I wish to say is that, in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I presume that he now maintains that we cannot pass the steel nationalisation Bill without having a General Election. Is that so?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps you will allow me to reply, Major Milner, because I do not wish to be discourteous, although I do not want to detain the Committee. On the hypothesis which we have been discussing, that is so. I have dealt with the point throughout on the hypothesis of this Clause.

Mr. James Hudson: When the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said that my hon. Friend's guard was down, he did not take very good advantage of the fact. He seemed to be flailing around helplessly. He was driven back to the old charge that we had designed this Bill in order to be able to dodge a General Election which we feared. The situation is the very opposite. As we see the development of the work which we have done and the Measures which we have put on the Statute Book, and remember the legislation which we propose to introduce in the next two years, it is obvious that the likelihood of our victory at the next General Election is as great as that of hon. Members opposite.
5.45 p.m.
I wish to devote my remarks to the repeated charge which has been made by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). The assumption has been that the Government's only reason in introducing this Bill is to enable them to pass legislation relating to the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. A much more important argument is that the supporters of the Governmnet are very keen on this Measure. I speak regularly once, and often twice a week, in my constituency, and there is never a meeting at which some reference is not made to the necessity for the Labour Government to go forward with legislation dealing with the House of Lords.
I can well understand hon. Members who come from the universities stating that the people in the country are not aware of what is involved. For example,


the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has little contact with me, although I am one of his presumed supporters. I assure such hon. Members that the very opposite is the case in the average constituency represented by hon. Members on these benches. I am certain that the mass of the people such as those whom we on these benches represent feel that there should not be left in the hands of a Second Chamber the right to impede any legislation—not only iron and steel legislation—which the Labour Government, duly authorised by their mandate, propose to introduce and place on the Statute Book. The legislation which is foreshadowed in the King's Speech has the complete approval of the masses of the people who have sent us here to represent them. I am glad the Government are persisting in following these lines, and I am certain that this Amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I am sorry if I have been neglectful of one of my constituents in the hon. Member for Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson). I assure him, however, that although he is a constituent with whom I seldom agree, he is one to whom I am always pleased to listen with attention and respect.

Mr. Randall: Vote catching!

Mr. Strauss: I am not as optimistic as that. I am bound to say that the hon. Member has not devoted himself at all to the subject of the Amendment. I am going to resist all the temptations—and the Home Secretary gave me many—to indulge in a Second Reading speech, and I can promise brevity because I shall confine myself virtually to one point. It is simply what I believe to be the constitutional and legal impropriety of this retrospective provision. We obtained from the Home Secretary, who has all the advantages of research by the very able lawyers who advise him, the admission that there is no precedent whatsoever for a retrospective provision of this sort in a constitutional Measure. He then went on to make a very extraordinary statement. He said that, in his view, this Measure was not retrospective. I wonder whether he read the words which we are proposing to omit. After the opening words of the Bill,

The Parliament Act, 1911, shall have effect,
these words appear:
and shall be deemed to have had effect from the beginning of the session in which the Bill for this Act originated (save as regards that Bill itself).…
Anything more obviously retrospective on the face of the Statute cannot be imagined. It is in the most express words retrospective, and there is admittedly no precedent.
I invite the attention at least of all the lawyers present to some very significant words. Very often, by seeing unusual words in a Clause, one can realise how unusual is the thing that is being done. I wonder how many hon. Members can recall any Act of Parliament containing the words, "The Bill for this Act originated …" The very rarity, and almost unexampled rarity, of those words in a Statute is a sign of how unusual is the thing which we are doing. I do not say that there is no precedent, because I have found one in this very year. In the Wellington Museum Act, 1947, these words are found in Section 8 (2). I mention it only as a precedent for the use of these words. That Act dealt with the transfer of Apsley House, and the Section which contains the precedent for the words we are now considering provides that certain expenses connected with the preparation of "the Bill for this Act" shall be repaid to the Duke of Wellington.
I admit that lawyers, though they will not find in any constitutional Measure a precedent for a retrospective Clause of this kind, may be able to find in various Acts of Parliament precedents for saying that something shall be the state of the law as from a stated date, for example, the date when the Bill was introduced. That is found. In all such cases, however, what is to be achieved by the retrospective Section is absolutely clear on the face of the document, and that makes a really great difference. What my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) said is true, and what is achieved here is a pocket for the carrying of the iron and steel Bill; but anything may be done under the provision.
1 am not going to say anything more about the iron and steel Bill, except as regards one point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who asked, Did we admit that the iron and


steel Bill could not be put on the Statute Book in this Parliament if this Amendment were carried. I admit nothing of the kind. The iron and steel Bill certainly could be carried in this Parliament if the Government really believed in it and introduced it, instead of introducing this Bill; and if they introduced it during this Session. I do not, however, wish to enlarge on the iron and steel Bill because enough has been said on that on both sides. I will, however, give one further example of what can be done by this provision to which we are objecting. I think I am right in this, and I think that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will not differ from me on the matter of law. I think that under this retrospective provision a further amendment of the period allowed by this Bill, when it becomes an Act, could be achieved; that the one year to which the period of delay is being reduced could be further

reduced under this retroactive Clause to some nugatory period—to, say, two days. I think that that would be legally possible. I give that as an example of what could be achieved. I am not saying that that is the intention of the Lord President or of any Member of the Government.

I would recapitulate by making these three points. On the face of the document the Bill contains this plainly retroactive provision. Secondly, in a constitutional Measure, there is no precedent throughout our history for such a thing being done. That has been admitted by the Home Secretary. Thirdly, what can be achieved under this objectionable provision cannot be ascertained by looking at the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 150.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[5.51 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Collins, V. J.
Goodrich, H. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gordon-Walker, P C.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Grey, C. F.


Alpass, J. H.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Grierson, E.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Crawley, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Attewell, H. C.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Austin, H. Lewis
Crossman, R. H. S
Guy, W. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Daines, P.
Hale, Leslie


Ayles, W. H
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hardy, E A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Harrison, J.


Balfour, A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Haworth, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Barton, C.
Deer, G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Battley, J. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M


Bechervaise, A. E.
Delargy, H. J.
Hicks, G.


Belcher, J. W.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Donovan, T.
House, G.


Benson, G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hoy, J.


Berry, H.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hubbard, T.


Beswick, F.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Bing, G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Binns, J.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Blackburn, A. R,
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jay, D. P. T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bramall, E. A.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, Rt Hon. A C (Shipley)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, D T (Hartlepool)


Bruce, Maj. D. W T.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Burden, T. W.
Field, Capt. W. J
Keenan, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C


Callaghan, James
Follick, M.
Key, C. W


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Foot, M. M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Chamberlain, R. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Champion, A. J.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Lang, G.


Chater, D.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, J.
Leonard, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Leslie, J. R.


Cocks, F. S.
Gilzean, A.
Lever, N. H.


Collick, P.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Levy, B. W.




Lindgren, G. S.
Pearson, A.
Symonds, A. L.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Longden, F.
Perrins, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lyne, A. W.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


McAdam, W.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


McAllister, G.
Price, M. Philips
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


McEntee, V. La T.
Proctor, W. T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J
Thurtle, Ernest


McGovern, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Tiffany, S.


Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Randall, H. E.
Titteringtan, M. F.


McKinlay, A. S.
Ranger, J
Tolley, L


Maclean, N (Govan)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


McLeavy, F.
Reeves, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Rhodes, H.
Viant, S. P.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.
Walker, G. H.


Mayhew, C. P.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Medland, H. M.
Robens, A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Warbey, W. N.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Royle, C.
Watson, W. M.


Mikardo, Ian.
Sargood, R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mitchison, G. R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morley, R.
Sharp, Granville
West, D. G.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wheatley, J. T (Edinburgh, E.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shurmer, P.
White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wilkes, L.


Moyle, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Murray, J. D
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Nally, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Naylor, T E.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Solley, L. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sorensen, R W.
Williamson, T.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Willis, E.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Sparks, J A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Oliver, G. H.
Stamford, W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Woodburn, A.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stokes, R. R.
Wyatt, W.


Palmer, A M. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J



Parker, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Sylvester, G.O.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Eccles, D. M.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Elliot, Rt Hon. Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Erroll, F. J.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Baxter, A. B.
Fox, Sir G
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Fyle, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.


Beechman, N. A.
Gage, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bennett, Sir P.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Birch, Nigel
Gammans, L. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Boothby, R.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Glyn, S[...] R
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Bower, N.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Marlowe, A. A. H


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Grant, Lady
Marples, A. E


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gridley, Sir A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Grimston, R V.
Mellor, Sir J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morris-Jones, Sir H


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)


Butler, Rt. Hn R. A (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Haughton, S. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)


Challen, C.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Channon, H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Herbert, Sir A. P
Nield, B (Chester)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hogg, Hon Q.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Odey, G. W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Keeling, E. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Digby, S. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Pickthorn, K


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.


Donner, P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lloyd, Major Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)







Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Raikes, H. V.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset. E.)


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Studholme, H. G.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Roberts, Major P. G. (Ecclesall)
Sutcliffe, H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. [...] A. (P'dd[...]n, S)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ropner, Col. L.
Teeling, William
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Sanderson, Sir F.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Scott, Lord W.
Touche, G. C.
York, C.


Smith, E P. (Ashford)
Turton, R. H.



Smithers, Sir W.
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Snadden, W. M.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Ward Hon G. R.

The Chairman: If it meets the convenience of the Committee, I think we might discuss the next two Amendments together: In page 1, line 19, leave out "one year," and insert "six months," and in page 1, line 19, leave out "year" and insert "month."

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "one year" and to insert "six months."
There is general agreement on these benches with the idea of cutting down the period of delay possessed by the House of Lords, but many of us feel considerable disquiet about the limited nature of the Government's proposals. Just now, the Home Secretary made it quite clear that the last year of this Parliament would be ineffective from the point of view of passing any controversial legislation should the House of Lords choose to turn down any Measures passed by this House in that last year. That is the first great weakness in the Government's proposals.
The second weakness which I see is that, up to now, the House of Lords has behaved itself reasonably well, and has not turned down any of the Government's legislation. However, I feel that were there only that one year's delaying power in existence there would be a very strong temptation for the House of Lords to use their power of postponement or veto rather more than they have done in the present Parliament, which would cause serious inconvenience indeed to a Government of the Left trying to put through controversial legislation.
Take, for example, the Transport Act. Eventually, the House of Lords allowed it to go through, but had there been only one years's power of postponement or veto they might well have decided to reject it, knowing that in a year's time it would have become law in any case. I ask the Government: What would have been the position had the House of Lords done

that? The Transport Act is a very detailed Measure; many of the proposals in such an Act have to be up-to-date at the time it comes into operation, and a delay of a year would probably make a considerable portion of an Act of that character out-of-date by the time it came into law.
The whole position with regard to the power of veto and postponement possessed by the House of Lords has altered considerably since 1911. In 1911 most of the legislation passed by Parliament was of a political character, such as that for the disestablishment of the Welsh Church, or something of that kind, in regard to which it would not matter whether or not the Bill was postponed for two years, because when it came into operation it would still be up-to-date. Nowadays, most of the legislation is of an economic and industrial character, particularly that relating to the various nationalisation proposals, of which we on this side of the Committee expect to see others in this Parliament, and we do not want legislation of that kind postponed for too long before coming into operation.
Even allowing a postponement of one year to the House of Lords is giving a temptation to the Second Chamber to use that power rather more often than they have used it in this Parliament, consequently making serious difficulties for a Government introducing controversial economic and industrial legislation in future. I suggest, that the period of one year should be cut down to six months. I do not disagree strongly with the period of one month suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). In effect, it amounts to the same thing, because most major Measures take at least six months to go through Parliament.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) gave


a rather longer timetable just now when talking of major Measures. It is six months from the Second Reading, so in effect the six months' period really rules out the veto altogether. That is the intention of this Amendment, and it amounts to very much the same thing as if we had one month instead of six months: in effect, they both amount to destroying the veto of the House of Lords. That is the intention of this Amendment, and that is why many hon. Members on this side of the Committee think that the one year's period is too long. It ought to be cut down to six months.
The last point I make is, many of us feel that if the House of Lords tries to postpone any major piece of legislation, then this Chamber should have the right to overrule that veto in the course of the same Session. Again, that is the point of this Amendment, that if the House of Lords dislike a Measure and the House of Commons insist upon it, it would go through in one Session, and we should not have to wait till the next Session to use our power to overrule the House of Lords veto.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has argued the case for this Amendment with such clarity, and has put the facts of the situation so cogently before the Committee, that I need to say very little more to induce at least hon. Members on this side to support it. In all the arguments which have gone on with reference to this Bill, and, indeed, in the public discussions which have preceded this Bill, there has been a tendency on the part of those who support it and those who oppose it to try to draw an unreal distinction between the composition of the Second Chamber and the powers of the Second Chamber. It seems to me that that is a false dichotomy. These questions cannot be separated, and we must consider what powers we are prepared to give a Second Chamber in the light of the way that Chamber is constituted, in the light of the extent to which it is responsible and is able to prove its responsibility, and in the light of the assiduity or otherwise with which Members of the Second Chamber do or as is generally the case with our Second Chamber, do not attend to their duties. All these are factors which must be taken into account when considering what

powers we are prepared to give to any agency of that character.
It is not very often that I differ from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and where I do differ from him, I do so with considerable diffidence and with the greatest possible deference. I am completely at odds with him when he says that the powers it is proposed to leave to the House of Lords are the maximum powers which could be left to any Second Chamber, however constituted. He, too, then, is a supporter of the view that the constitution of a Second Chamber has nothing to do with a decision on what powers should be passed over to that Chamber. May I reply by giving an extreme case to illustrate the argument? Suppose that we had a Second Chamber elected by universal franchise in precisely the same way as this Chamber. I do not advocate that, because it would obviously be a piece of duplication, and it would lead to a horrible position. Suppose that we had two Chambers both democratically elected in the same way. There would then be no reason at all, under these conditions, for one of these Chambers to arrogate to itself the right to delimit the powers of the other Chamber, which would carry the same weight of democratic electoral authority as itself. Clearly, one must take into account the nature and constitution of the Chamber in considering what powers it should have.
6.15 p.m.
The constitution of the present Second Chamber is very mixed. It includes a number of extremely worthy noble gentlemen, who would probably be included on their merits in a Second Chamber however it were elected. Unfortunately, with that very small number of gentlemen are included a large number of gentlemen who, if they turned up for one of the Debates, would not be recognised even by the police and officers of the House who have been here for 30 years. It includes also a very large number of gentlemen who have risen to the top by the convenient method of having had grandfathers who started at the bottom of the ladder. When we have a Second Chamber of this sort, it can be reasonably argued that the maximum powers which should be passed over to them are the powers which will enable a Bill to go through its constitutional stages in that House within the minimum amount of time, but with sufficient time


to complete the processes of public interest in, and discussion of, a Measure. We are left to decide on these two criteria what is the proper period of potential veto which the House of Lords should have, against the criterion that there must be time for the mechanics of a Bill to operate and for public discussion to be completed. I am not an expert on the mechanics of procedure of Parliament. It it clear that there are some grounds for varying views upon what is a proper period for this purpose. The Opposition argue that over two years is an appropriate period, but I do not believe their support for that is based upon any factual analysis of the problem, but is based, as most of their support for other things is based, merely on the general idea that anything fresh must be worse than anything which already exists.
The Government believe that one year is a proper period, and it is very difficult, when dealing with this question of mechanics, to argue against such parliamentarians as the Lord President of the Council and the Deputy-Leader of the House. On the other hand, three of my hon. Friends from North of the Border, who are well known to be practical and realistic men, are arguing that a month is adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and I, being reasonable, sober men with a desire to compromise, feel that the truth lies somewhere between my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Hence, we commend the suggestion that six months is an appropriate period to get a Bill through.
The second criterion is this question of the formation of public opinion. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) thinks that six months is not long enough, in the case of complicated Bills, for people to work out what they think about a Measure. I put it to the Committee that public discussion on a Measure does not start on the day that a Bill goes to the Lords. It starts, at the very latest, on the day when the Bill is published, and before it comes up for discussion on Second Reading. Very often it starts before that, because people whose interests are adversely affected, or people who think their interests may be adversely affected, by

a projected Measure, generally squeal before they are hurt. One has only to cite the enormous argument which went on about the Transport Bill a year before it was produced.
It must also be remembered that when their Lordships come to consider a Measure, they do so with advantages which Members of this House do not have. They do so with the advantage of having the records of all the Debates through all the stages of the Bill in its passage through this House. We in this House, when a Bill comes fresh to us, have to find out for ourselves the meaning of the not always clear language of the Bill. We have to make up our minds what we think it means, decide the pros and cons, and grope for a long time towards the solution of our problems. We find it only in the cut-and-thrust of Debate, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs. Their Lordships start with all that job done for them, and they start also with public opinion considerably formulated by newspaper and other reports of the Debates which have taken place in this House.
It is not germane for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to argue as though there were no public discussions at all, and no opportunity for their Lordships to inform themselves on a Measure, until it came up for Second Reading in this House. I think that he made that point, with his tongue in his cheek, in order to get in a remark about the Government, to which the Home Secretary replied, having taken three years to make up its mind about the steel Bill. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, against whom no hon. Member would breathe a word of aspersion, confesses that he spends his spare time listening at the keyhole at No. 10, Downing Street, because that is the only way he could possibly know about dissensions in the Cabinet. I think that he knows that public opinion is well crystallised about any Bill before it gets to the Lords. Between the revolutionary extremists from South Ayrshire on the Left, and the Right Wing extremists on the Front Bench on the Right, who respectively want a one month and 12-month period, the Committee will probably come to the conclusion that six months is just and sensible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am surprise to hear the hon. Member


for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) describe me as an extremist, and say that this is an extremist proposal. This is a much more moderate suggestion and a much more moderate point of view than the one taken by the Labour Party 36 years ago. At that time, the Labour Party moved an Amendment to the Parliament Bill to limit the Preamble and to abolish the House of Lords altogether. The speakers for the Labour Party on that occasion stressed the point that they were Second Chamber men. They were not extremists; they were not revolutionaries, they included very Conservative constitutionalists like the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. I am rather disappointed that the present Government, with its great majority, have not decided to abolish the House of Lords altogether, and so pave the way for the generations that are coming after us—clearing away this debris of constitutionalism and leaving the way free for us to build up a Socialist commonwealth.
My very moderate Amendment—to leave out "year," and to insert "month"—allows the House of Lords to continue, but says that one month is quite sufficient for it to be allowed to delay legislation passed by this House. In Scotland, we have a special grievance against the House of Lords because we have two kinds of peers. We have the hereditary peers and the elected peers, elected by their peers. The hereditary peers, I submit—although the Members who represent the English constituencies do not know a great deal about them—who are likely to descend on us in time of crisis are the people who do not take a great deal of interest in the affairs of the other House; but they have for a long time taken a very reactionary part in the public life of Scotland, especially in local government.
We have heard about iron and steel, but there are other pieces of legislation which are coming along, and one of them is the Scottish Agriculture Bill. Many of us would like to see it drastically altered in Committee, so that extended powers of compulsory purchase would be given to the Secretary of State for Scotland, which would enable us to get big instalments for the nationalisation of the land of Scotland. When this proposal emerges from the Committee Stage, we are likely—I am warning the Government

—to get both kinds of peers descending on us, and opposing such a Bill with more enthusiasm than they are likely to show on the iron and steel Bill. So I suggest we take as drastic powers as possible—for, after all, this Government might as well be killed for a sheep as for a lamb. The hereditary peer has been described very well by the late Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Johnston, to whom a tribute was paid in the other place only last night as being the greatest Secretary of State Scotland has ever had.
I will not dwell upon this point, but I would like to give one brief quotation which describes the point of view and historical background with which we in Scotland approach this matter. I could give a good many quotations, and I could supply hon. Members with biographical data of the respective noble Lords who are likely to descend on them. The ex-Secretary of State for Scotland has described the people likely to come from Scotland to the House of Lords as follows:
Generation after generation, these few families of tax-gatherers have sucked the lifeblood of our nation; in their prides and lusts they have sent us to war, family against family, clan against clan, race against race; that they might live in idleness and luxury, the labouring man has sweated and starved; they have pruned the creeds of our Church and stolen its revenues; their mailed fists have crushed the newer thought, and their vanities the arts. In their vandalisms they burned and destroyed our national records.
In my experience of local government we had to come in conflict with these hereditary peers. There was the Marquis of Bute——

6.30 p.m.

The Chairman: I do not know what that point has to do with the Amendment under discussion. I cannot see what hereditary peers have got to do with six months or one month or why the Marquis of Bute should be mentioned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: With all respect, the point I was making was that these gentlemen should not have any power to delay legislation even for one month. In my experience as a town councillor we have encountered these hereditary peers, who have stood in the way of housing. Housing schemes have been held up for a considerable time because one of these hereditary peers would not allow us to have one square yard of land for the


purposes of slum clearance. If there is legislation affecting the land the Government are likely to get these reactionary peers coming down. There is one noble duke——

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. I put it that this is an attack on personalities in the House of Lords.

The Chairman: I have called the attention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to the fact that he must not develop his argument on these lines. Nor is it permissible to make reflections on persons in another House.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: It is not clear whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was referring to a hereditary peer or an elected peer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is one of the elected peers. I do not wish to make an attack upon the noble duke. What I wish to point out is that this noble duke for many years happened to own a very large island in the West of Scotland, but he refused even to have a Co-operative Society on this island.

The Chairman: Order! That may or may not be a fact, but I do not think it has anything to do with the question whether the time of delay should be one year, six months or one month.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The only point is I would not give this noble Lord power to obstruct legislation for 24 hours never mind a month. I want to pass on. Why should an earl from Scotland come here and hold up legislation affecting the purchase of land in Scotland. I warn the Government that they are likely to get an influx of these gentlemen whenever they come to discuss any question of land. I just want to deal with the question of the peers who are elected. There are 16 peers who are elected——

The Chairman: I really do not see how that question comes under the present Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to the terms of the Amendment, which is a question of time and not a question of the merits or demerits of the various classes of peers, unless the hon. Gentleman can relate that

fact to the question of time. Even then he is not permitted to reflect upon Members of another House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is very difficult to elaborate the point in those circumstances. I am going to conclude with this point—and I thank you, Major Milner, for the tolerance you have shown towards me—there are 16 of these peers and a meeting was held recently in Edinburgh to elect them. Only 12 of the other peers turned up to elect 16. I suggest that an institution of this kind should have its powers severely limited, and I urge the Government to accept the very moderate and sensible Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am sure we have listened with fascinated interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and I think it was an achievement of patience on your part, Major Milner, and dexterity on his, that he so successfully survived for quite a time. I listened with great interest to what he said about what happened 36 years ago when the original Parliament Act of 1911 was considered. Then the fairly small Labour Party in this House voted for the complete abolition of the House of Lords. We all enjoyed ourselves in those days, and we are hoping to enjoy ourselves now, but whatever may be said about that, it would be stressing the doctrine of the mandate very, very far in existing circumstances, and in the absence of excessive provocative action on the part of another place, to assume we have got a case in this Parliament either for the abolition of the Second Chamber, or the virtual abolition of the Second Chamber.
I say quite frankly that if in my younger days I advocated the abolition of the House of Lords—I have no clear memory upon it but it would be a wonder if I did not—I am bound to say, in the light of my Parliamentary experience, that I am doubtful whether it would work, because within the process of amending Bills, of which I have now had a lot of experience, even in the best regulated measures there is a need for amending, and the best Ministers go on amending and amending. Sometimes I am almost driven to the shocking conclusion—I can assure the House that I am not coming to that stage—that what we want is not


two Chambers, but three, in order to get on with Amendments. From a practical point of view, we have revision and amendment which would block the House if there were not a Second Chamber that can be doing these things while this House does some other legislative and necessary work.
Having uttered these few reactionary observations, though they embrace the realities of the situation, we come to the point of whether the period is to be one month or six months. The real point inherent in this discussion is whether the powers of the Bill are adequate to prevent another place improperly and unduly impeding the will of the people as expressed in this House. That is the real practical question which is before us. I do not complain at all that my hon. Friends should have brought forward these Amendments. I think that my moderate friends, with their period of six months, might be called the Mensheviks, and as for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, I am afraid, I must be driven to call him the Bolshevik in this case. They have put their case very sweetly, very reasonably, and with great charm.
With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, whose Amendment is for one month, I must point out that he has rather misunderstood what would be the effect of his Amendment if it were adopted. He has said on a number of occasions that he wishes another place to have no power of delay other than one month and that he would like to cut their power to that extent. With great respect, this particular Amendment, if it were carried, would mean that a Bill could be passed over the heads of another place provided it passed through two Sessions of this House and in a period of not less than one month from the date of its first Second Reading in this House to the date of its final passing in the second Session of Parliament. We have done some legislative streamlining in this present Parliament, and we have moderately speeded up the Parliamentary machine, but we have not got anywhere near that, and are not likely to. Under this Measure, an important Bill gets a Second Reading here and goes through all its stages, and after going through all its stages in another place, is sent back, and in the second Session that procedure

has to be repeated, although not necessarily all of it. My hon. Friend contemplates that that might occupy only one month. That is Bolshevism gone mad, and it will not do for the British Parliament. He must not go as far as that. His Amendment is intended to limit the delay of another place to one month, but it is not practical politics to confine the whole process to one month. I hope that in the same spirit of sweet reasonableness with which he made his speech, he will be good enough, either not to press the Amendment, or to withdraw it.
With regard to the more moderate proposals of my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and Reading (Mr. Mikardo), the case against them is not so strong as it is against my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. Nevertheless, while their proposal could be so argued—and it had better be taken notice of in all quarters, including another place—nobody wants to be provoked into this rather more extreme course. I do not complain that the proposal has been made, but I put these considerations to my hon. Friends. The proposal is too tight. It contemplates an unreasonably short period. Let us examine what happens. A Bill may be introduced here for Second Reading in November, but we can also have important Bills introduced in February. Last Session the Electricity Bill was not introduced until February, and I think there was another Bill about that time. These Bills have to go through all their stages in this House, and if they are Bills of importance, that is bound to take some time. They have then to go to another place and go through all their stages there, and something may have to happen under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in the second year.
It is reasonable in principle—and I think it is right in principle—that if a dispute is going to exist between the two Houses, which would presumably be about a matter of some importance, the Statute should require that there is reasonable time for both Chambers to think about their respective positions. It is not only a matter that one Chamber votes one way and the other Chamber votes another way, but it is desirable that there should be a reasonable time for reflection, thought, and consideration. What will not be good is if the Constitution works in such a way that one


House, whichever it may be, has the power, without thought and reflection and with undue speed, to push legislation down the throat of another House in the Parliamentary institution.
That kind of thing is not natural to the British way of doing things, and it is liable to create an exasperating situation instead of a situation in which people are cross because certain things are happening but nevertheless acquiesce in them. There is something very important about that. It is one of the greatest qualities of the British people that they can have an argument and a bitter fight, but at the end of it there is acquiescence in what the majority has decided. For example, if it were the case that a Bill was introduced in February—which might well happen—or even earlier, it might not get to another place until Whitsun. It would be right that another place should have reasonable time in which to deal with that Bill. Last Session some very important Bills did not go to another place until Whitsun.
The second Session must be allowed for. My belief is that we cannot adequately go through these procedures in a period of six months, and I think that in choosing 12 months the Government were right. I can assure my two hon. Friends that we considered this very carefully and worked out possible timetables and honestly we could not come to a conclusion other than that to enable the necessary processes to take place and to give the right of reflection and consideration, 12 months was a reasonable period. All three of my hon. Friends have put their case with great kindliness and moderation, but in view of the considerations I have put to the Committee, I shall be grateful if they will be so good as to withdraw their Amendments.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Astor: The Lord President twice uttered a warning that if another place were provocative, he would be inclined to accept the kind of Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). If he is attempting to rationalise the constitutional position of the Second Chamber, he must not complain if the Second Chamber use their powers. If, on the other hand, he is not trying to rationalise their position, he had far better

be honest about it and withdraw the Bill altogether.

Mr. McKie: I must say how very glad I am that the Home Secretary has turned a deaf ear to both the more moderate and the more revolutionary proposals which have been made.

Mr. Ede: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not deaf.

Mr. McKie: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I meant to refer to the Leader of the House. I rise to say how very deeply I deplore the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The hon. Gentleman's constituency borders on mine and I can assure him that in the parts contiguous to my Division he would not get very much support, if any, for the kind of remarks he has just made. Before the hon. Member comes down and gives the Committee such misleading information, he should inform himself more closely as to just what the position is with regard to the peers in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman gave the Committee to understand that the peers came here in a dual capacity, but that is nonsense. There are 16 representative peers from Scotland who are elected by their peers at the beginning of each new Parliament and no other Scottish peer comes to Westminster unless he is a peer of England, or Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take note of my remarks as being factual and accurate, and will not in future make such glaring inaccuracies.
The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) lifted the curtain a little too much for the pleasure of the Leader of the House as to what has been going on behind the scenes in the Labour Party with regard to this Bill, in consequence of which we have these two Amendments on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Reading said he could only allow six months because of the composition of the Second Chamber. Does that mean that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to come along with us and work out a proper reform of the Second Chamber and give to the other House some of the powers which we on this side of the Committee think it should possess? I rather think not, from the general tenor of his remarks.

Mr. Mikardo: The extent to which I am prepared to accompany reformed sinners always depends on the degree to which their reformation is repentance and the purpose of the reformation.

Mr. McKie: For the hon. Gentleman's edification, I do not regard myself at all as a repentant sinner on this issue. I certainly am not a saint, but I am not prepared to allow him to describe me on this matter, or on some other matters, as a sinner, either continuing or repentant. I hope that both the hon. Members will withdraw their Amendments in response to the suggestion of the Leader of the House but, if they do not, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall accompany him into the Division Lobby against his own party.

Mr. Parker: In view of the statement of the Lord President of the Council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I feel that the speeches made during the Debate have indicated far more clearly than anything else what a good effect a two-year period of delay has had in the past, and would have in the future if this Clause to amend the Parliament Act, 1911, were not passed. Whatever colour of Government there may be in future in this country, and whatever may be the future colour of the majority in the House of Lords, is entirely immaterial to the constitutional point that it is necessary, for the satisfactory conduct of the affairs of any country of the magnitude of this one, that there should be a Second Chamber which has adequate and sufficient revising powers. Therefore, I feel we should not allow Clause 1 to pass in its present form without registering one more strong protest against the reduction in the powers of the Second Chamber which it carries with it.

Mr. Maclay: Before we pass this Clause, there is a matter to

Division No. 41.]
AYES.
[6.54 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bacon, Miss A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V.
Attewell, H C
Balfour, A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Austin, H Lewis
Barstow, P. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Awbery, S. S.
Barton, C.


Alpass, J H
Ayles, W. H.
Battley, J. R.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Bechervaise, A. E.

which I must draw attention. I do not propose to make a speech on the content of the Clause because I said my say on Second Reading, but I wish to draw the attention of anybody who is interested in the English language, or in clarity, to the sentence which starts in line 20, on page 1, and continues over the page for another three lines. I defy any normal person reading that sentence to have the slightest idea of what it means. I know we claim great credit that we have no written basic Constitution, but, at least, when we draft Bills dealing with our Constitution some effort should be made to make them intelligible. It is quite the most deplorable piece of drafting one could imagine.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself have expressed our view, on the main part of the Clause, and why we consider that two years, and not one year, is the proper period. We have had considerable Debate on the retroactive provisions in the Clause, and I am sure that no one will object if I take the line for myself, and those who care to act with me on this matter, that we shall vote against the Clause standing part, but we do not think it is necessary after the discussion we have had to prolong the Debate upon it. I am sure right hon. Gentlemen opposite will understand that position.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. and and learned Gentleman for what he has said. I am not quite sure what he means by "those who care to act" with him—whether there is some division of opinion as to whether it is desirable to vote against the Clause standing part. However, the whole of the argument has reinforced our view that this is a necessary and very moderate adaptation of the Constitution to modern circumstances, and I advise all my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote for the retention of this Clause in the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261;
Noes, 120.

Belcher, J. W
Hardy, E. A.
Perrins, W.


Benson, G.
Harrison, J
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Berry, H.
Haworth, J
Popplewell, E.


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Price, M. Philips


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R
Pryde, D. J


Binns, J
Holman, P
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Blackburn, A R
House, G.
Randall, H. E.


Blenkinsop, A
Hoy, J
Ranger, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hubbard, T.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reeves, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hughes, H D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hutchinson, H L (Rusholme)
Richards, R.


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Royle, C.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.
Sargood, R.


Burden, T W
Janner, B.
Segal, Dr. S.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Callaghan, James
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Sharp, Granville


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Shurmer, P.


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, S S (Nelson)


Chater, D
Kenyan, C.
Simmons, C J


Chetwynd, G. R
Key, C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Cluse, W. S
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Cobb, F. A.
Kinley, J
Skinnard, F W


Cocks, F. S.
Lang, G.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Collick, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Snow, J. W


Collins, V. J.
Leonard, W.
Solley, L. J


Colman, Miss G. M.
Leslie, J R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Longden, F
Sparks, J. A.


Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Lyne, A W
Stamford, W.


Corlett, Dr J.
McAdam, W
Stokes, R. R


Corvedale, Viscount
McAllister, G
Stross, Dr. B


Cove, W G
McEntee V La T
Swingler, S.


Crawley, A.
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O


Daines, P.
McGovern, J.
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Deer, G.
MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)
Thomas, I O (Wrekin)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mann, Mrs J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Delargy, H. J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Diamond, J.
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Tiffany, S.


Dodds, N. N.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G
Titterington, M. F.


Donovan, T.
Medland, H. M.
Tolley, L.


Driberg, T E. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Durbin, E. F. M.
Middleton, Mrs L
Turner-Samuels, M


Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Ungoed-Thomas L


Edelman, M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Vernon, Maj W. F


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Viant, S P


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Moody, A S.
Walker, G H


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Morley, R
Warbey, W N


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Watson, W M


Evans, S N (Wednesbury)
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Ewart, R
Mort, D. L.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E
Moyle, A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Field, Capt. W J.
Murray, J. D.
West, D. G.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Nally, W.
Wheatley J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)


Follick, M.
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Foot, M M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt Hon W


Freeman, John (Watford)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wilkes, L


Ganley, Mrs C. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wilkins, W A


Gibbins, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Gibson, C W
O'Brien, T.
Willey, O. G (Cleveland)


Gilzean, A
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Glanville J. E (Consett)
Orbach, M
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gordon-Walker, P C
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williamson, T.


Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A M F
Willis, E


Grierson, E.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wills, Mrs E. A.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parker, J.
Woodburn, A


Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Parkin, B. T
Wyatt. W


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)



Guy, W H
Pearson, A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, Rt Hon Glenvil
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Hannan and




Mr. George Wallace.







NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P G
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V
Pitman, I. J


Aitken, Hon. Max
Haughton, S. G.
Ponsonby, Col, C. E.


Amory, D Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Astor, Hon M
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Herbert, Sir A. P
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beechman, N. A
Hogg, Hon. Q
Renton, D.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bries, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boothby, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bossom, A C
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Bower, N.
Lambert, Hon. G
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selywn (Wirral)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Channon, H.
Lucas, Major Sir J
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'tn, S.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (B'mley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Dodds-Parker, A D.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vane, W. M. F.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marlowe, A A. H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Drayson, G. B
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Mellor, Sir J
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eccles, D. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Erroll, F. J.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fox, Sir G.
Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir U P M
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir nc'ster)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


George, Maj Rt. Hn. G Lloyd (P'ke)
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Clyn, Sir R.
Nicholson, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C.


Grant, Lady
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A.
Nutting, Anthony



Grimston, R. V
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pickthorn, K.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, &c.) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &amp;c.) Acts, 1911 to 1936, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the said Acts or under the Superannuation Acts, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) enabling a Governor to retire on pension at the age of fifty-five instead of the age of sixty,
(b) increasing the amount of a Governor's pension by not more than one pound for

each month's service of any Class (including service already rendered by a Governor now in office);
(c) raising the limits imposed by the said Acts of 1911 to 1936 on the amount of a Governor's pension, and on the amount of such a pension taken together with any other pension in respect of employment in the service of the Crown, by not more than three hundred pounds; (d) repealing so much of Section nine of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &amp;c.) Act, 1911, and of Section three of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &amp;c.) Act, 1929 (which enable pensions to be granted in certain special cases to Governors who have not attained the ordinary retiring age), as requires a deduction to be made in a pension granted under either of these Sections."—[Mr. Rees-Williams.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (in this Resolution referred to as 'the Act') to amend the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland; to make further provision for the improvement


and development of agriculture and the use of agricultural land in Scotland; to authorise the making of grants towards the provision of houses and buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands, and to extend the time for making applications for assistance under the Housing (Agricultural, Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, it is expedient to authorise:—

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the Act—

(i) in securing good estate management and good husbandry;
(ii) in acquiring land by agreement or compulsorily, and whether by way of purchase or taking possession;
(iii) in managing, farming or otherwise dealing with land acquired by him as aforesaid, and in providing facilities for tenants and workers on land managed by him;
(iv) in providing and in adapting, equipping and managing holdings of an area not exceeding seventy-five acres or holdings the annual rent of which does not exceed one hundred and fifty pounds; in making loans for providing working capital for tenants of holdings provided on land vested in the Secretary of State not exceeding three-quarters of the estimated amount of such capital; and in making grants or loans to bodies promoting by co-operative methods the efficient conduct of holdings;
(v) in making grants towards the erection, improvement or rebuilding of dwelling-houses or other buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands;
(vi) in respect of the prevention of damage to agriculture by animals and birds;
(vii) in providing agricultural goods and services;
(viii) in defraying the expenses of the Agricultural Executive Committees established under the Act and of sub-committees of the said Committees in paying allowances to the members of such Committees or sub-committees, and in defraying the expenses of the Agricultural Advisory Committees established under the Act.

B. The payment into the Exchequer of sums received under the Act by the Secretary of State or by any person or body of persons exercising functions on his behalf.
C. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure attributable to—

(i) any provision of the Act increasing from five pounds to ten pounds for each acre of agricultural land benefited the maximum limit to the cost of works of minor arterial drainage in respect of which a grant may be paid under Section twenty-nine of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940;

(ii) any provision of the Act extending by five years the period for making applications for assistance under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938;
(iii) any provision of the Act whereby additional areas are to be deemed to be congested districts for the purposes of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897.

D. The charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums charged on and payable out of that Fund under Section three of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, in respect of the salaries of members of the Scottish Land Court arising by reason of the appointment of additional members under the Act, and the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase so arising in the expenditure incurred under the Scottish Land Court Act, 1938, in respect of pensions of such members.
E. The application of any balance in the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund at the date of the winding up thereof under the Act in repayment of loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners under Section twenty-six of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which apart from the Act would be authorised to be paid out of that Fund, and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums which apart from the Act would be authorised to be paid into that Fund and of any remainder in that Fund after the repayment of loans as aforesaid."

WAYS AND MEANS [1st DECEMBER]

Resolution reported:

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND)

"That, where under any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland; to make further provision for the improvement and development of agriculture and the use of agricultural land in Scotland; to authorise the making of grants towards the provision of houses and buildings for landholders and cottars in the Highlands and Islands, and to extend the time for making applications for assistance under the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, the Secretary of State takes possession of land for the purpose of farming it, the enactments relating to income tax shall apply in relation to payments made by the Secretary of State or by a person entrusted by him with the farming thereof, as if the Secretary of State or such person were a tenant, the recipient of the payments were a lessor and the payments were rent."

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Crosby, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Frinton and Walton, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Glastonbury, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Guildford, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Hungerford, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd December, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wigston, a copy of which Order was presented on 2nd December, be approved."—[Mr. Ede.]

BOOK IMPORTS (RESTRICTIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I desire to raise the question of the import of books. It is fair to tell the House at the commencement that I have, as it were, two interests in reverse in this question, in that I am to some extent an author of books and to some extent a publisher of books, in this country, and, therefore, it might seem superficially that it is to my interest that all other books be kept out of this country. I hope that I shall demonstrate that I

by no means think that it would, in point of fact, be to my interest.
There has been set up in this country an import licensing system for books. Last Friday the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) raised on the Adjournment the particular question of the import of certain American juvenile books, and the Financial Secretary then defended the policy on the lines upon which it was obvious it would be defended, that the purpose of this licensing system was, in the first place, to save dollars. In response to the hon. Member's plea that at any rate American juvenile books should be controlled—he was arguing for further control, which is the opposite of my argument—the Financial Secretary stated that it would be impossible to discriminate against American books because of Article 9 of the Financial Agreement. The last thing I would wish to do would be to say any word that could possibly be construed as approving of Article 9, but there it is, and I understand that position.
I understand that to be the general case of defence of the Government's policy. On that ground I would challenge its necessity, firstly, on a financial basis. I am fully conscious of the necessity to save dollars, and whether we like it or not we are entirely conscious of the fact that this Government and this country have undertaken these obligations under Article 9. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary, to begin with, that books are, on a purely financial basis, in an entirely different category from any other articles of trade between this country and America, because they are almost one of the few articles on which our balance of trade is, in all the circumstances, a favourable balance of trade.
In the years before the war it was enormously easier for an English author to get his books published in the United States than it was for an American author to get his books published in this country, and although the developments of the war have obviously made certain differences in that, it is my contention that if we tackle the problem with vigour and reasonable optimism, there is no reason why that favourable balance should not be restored. Therefore, from this purely financial point of view, greater freedom of trade between this country and the United States in that particular


line would result in a favourable rather than a more unfavourable dollar balance situation.
Nevertheless, it would be intolerable that the greatest glory of this country, its literature, should be considered solely as an article of commerce, and that is one of the reasons why I am extremely concerned about the whole import licensing system, and by no means entirely consoled by the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that, of course, that licensing system will be operated in such a way as always to let in any books of value. I see no reason at all why the present President of the Board of Trade, or any other holder of that office, should be the judge of what is valuable literature and what is not. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very learned and erudite man. I am not complaining at the moment that he has made any gross errors of taste, but there is no kind of reason to think that the judgment of Governments will be a satisfactory judgment on a point such as that.
Though it is perfectly true that up to the moment there have been no drastically scandalous refusals of import licences, yet in this matter, as in so many other matters, no sensible person can be consoled merely by looking at the present position, because in every sort of aspect of policy we know that the whole situation has changed with kaleidoscopic rapidity. The Government put on restrictions and announce that they are to be applied in a friendly and moderate fashion, but as the situation deteriorates they are used more and more drastically, so the mere fact that a licensing system exists is a cause for considerable concern.
Apart from that, although for the moment I have not heard of any case of any importance about which I would make a scandal because a licence has been refused, there is grave cause for complaint about the intolerable delays that are taking place in the granting of these licences, which, I maintain, are already imposing considerable sufferings upon the people of this country. For instance, this system was introduced in the month of October, and I have here a letter from a bookseller in which he says:
Up to the moment of writing we have not received a reply to any of these applications. As you will see, some of the licences date back as far as 7th October.

Only this morning this bookseller was rung up by an official of the Board of Trade, who told the firm that they might get a reply if they supplied to the Board of Trade all the details of their past trading. It is an extremely difficult thing for a short-staffed business to supply the Board of Trade, at short notice, with the details of their past trading. This particular bookseller says he has already had that precise request made to him three times in four months, and has had to put his staff three times to this business of looking up, in some detail, all their past trading, which puts them in an extraordinary difficulty.
The second class of books in regard to which there is a great grievance, both from the economic and the larger cultural points of view, is that there has been an almost complete, if not complete, stop placed upon all art books that are imported into this country from the Continent of Europe. We need not waste time, in establishing from the cultural point of view, the Philistinism of such a regulation, but even from the purely trading point of view it is equally foolish, because the position of this country in relation to art publication has, for 100 years, very largely been that of being the great middleman between the Continent of Europe and the United States. Our art experts have scoured the Continent and imported books which are necessary for their work, and they have written books in the English language which have had a large sale in the United States. At this critical time, owing to these regulations, we are being driven out of that market, and the Americans are necessarily doing this work for themselves, because it is possible for them to get the art books from the Continent of Europe, and it is not possible for art critics in this country to do so.
Let me take a third instance of the kind of thing that is happening. Of American friends of this country, there are few more distinguished and more faithful than Mr. Herbert Agar, a distinguished writer. He was at the American Embassy before the war and he returned to his own country to edit the "Louisville Courier." He was sent over here and attached to the late Mr. Winant's personal staff before the United States came into the war. Then he went back to do very valuable propaganda work in his own country on


behalf of Great Britain, to which he is most devotedly attached.
About a year ago, this extremely distinguished writer completed a work in the United States on the definitive edition of the work, "The Formative Years" by the distinguished American philosopher, Henry Adams. The question arose whether this book could be imported into this country. An intolerable delay took place with correspondence between officials of the Board of Trade who had clearly never heard of Mr. Agar or Henry Adams. As a result, nine months elapsed before leave was granted by the Board of Trade for this extremely important work of American scholarship to be imported into this country. What kind of effect is that likely to have on our standing in the United States if that is the sort of way in which we treat the most important work of one of our best friends in the country of our Ally?
On 9th May, the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) raised on the Adjournment what in some ways may appear to be the counter of the matter that I am raising today. He raised the question of book production in this country. Obviously enough, there is no opposition between asking for better conditions for book production here and for better conditions for the import of books. Books are not things of which there is a limited demand so that if we have two books in this country we cannot import two more from abroad. On the contrary, they are a commodity of which it is desirable that the supply should be as large as possible. The production of one book, far from stopping the production of another book, leads to the production of another book. There is no reason why I should not associate myself with every point which was very properly and well made by the hon. Member for Aston on that occasion.
But if these obstacles are still insuperable and we cannot produce books at home, let us be allowed to import more books. The hon. Member for Aston produced some rather humiliating and ridiculous examples. He described how school children had poems of Keats in their syllabus when it was impossible to obtain copies of the poems of Keats anywhere in this country. That is a humiliating and ridiculous situation, if it be so. If we cannot produce the poems of Keats here let us not also stop ourselves from importing them from other countries.
Also, there is the strange difficulty about binding. Before the war a considerable amount of binding work for books took place in other countries, particularly in Belgium. There again, if we can produce the books here and bind them in Belgium, surely it is to the advantage both of England and of Belgium that English and French books should be produced by this composite process rather than that we should continue the present situation in which the books cannot be produced in Belgium, because there is no paper, and cannot be produced in England because there is no binding.
We entirely understand the general need for helping exports in every way. However, it is clear that, whatever may be said for certain discrimination against other American goods at this time, there is no case for discrimination in this trade where the balance will be in our favour. Still less is there a case for discrimination against trade with other countries. It is fantastic to say that we must have exports and that we will stop having imports, and then to imagine that all the rest of the countries of the world will take our exports though we take nothing in return from them. It is obvious that in the matter of books, as indeed in many other matters, if we allow a greater condition of freedom there will be a greater trade on both sides, and to allow a greater freedom of imports, instead of being damaging to our exports, will be favourable to them. Obviously that is true on a purely economic basis.
In the book trade there is a further consideration that every wise man should have in mind. It is that the most important of our exports throughout the generations has not been coal, or cotton, but ideas. The ideas of this country have penetrated to every country to the advantage of the world in larger and deeper cultural ways, and also to our advantage in a narrower commercial way. Since our exports are, to a large extent, luxury goods and what may be called goods of taste, it is obvious that we are more likely to get people in other countries to buy our food, drink or clothes, if they are told something about our way of life and are made familiar with our literature. The grave danger is that round this country, and round other countries, there may be growing up something almost of the nature of an intellectual iron curtain.
We are stopped from travelling abroad; our newspapers are cut down; and if, on top of that, imports of books are stopped, more and more the nations of the world, at a time when everybody is crying out for the necessity of their unity and understanding, will drift into these separate compartments where they read different things and do not understand what one another are talking about. It has been the most important traditional rôle of this country that it should act as a great uniter of the nations in that cultural fashion. We are the motherland of what is incomparably the most important language of the world and we have, to our glory, one of the greatest literatures of the world. That literature cannot flourish if we retreat into an intellectual isolation. It can continue and flourish only if the scholars and writers here are allowed free access to the thought and work going on in other places.
At the moment all work of scholarship is becoming increasingly hampered by the fact that scholars simply cannot get hold of the most important works in their various fields produced in other countries. Therefore, I appeal most strongly to the Parliamentary Secretary to announce, if he is able to do so, that the whole import licensing system has been scrapped. If he is not able to go as far as that, I ask him to give some assurance that it will work with a great deal less delay. At present, as in so many other Government activities, the whole thing seems to be bogged up, and the delay in getting licences is so intolerable that we might almost as well have a complete ban on the import of books as live under the conditions in which we are living.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. McAllister: I do not propose to speak for anything like the length of time which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) occupied, but I am sure that we are all grateful to him for having raised this important issue, and that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not in any way be out of sympathy with the motives which lie behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is through this country, and, equally through my native country, especially the City of Edinburgh, that we have a great publishing tradition which, probably more

than any other factor, has made the Scottish, English, and Welsh way of life known to peoples in the far corners of the earth and has implanted the principles of democracy in many places where it otherwise would not have flourished.
We spend large sums of public money on propagating ideas, news, and views about Britain in many parts of the world. But without any expenditure by the Exchequer, without any cost to the taxpayer, the book that goes abroad tells the British story in a way better than any official channel can possibly tell it. We ought to regard books as the special ambassadors of British ideas and thought, and give them the utmost encouragement, instead of putting obstructions in their way. The hon. Member for Devizes put the matter clearly when he said that the balance of dollar payments was entirely favourable to this country. I am not sure what the prewar figure was, but I think the credit balance was something like £4 million, which is a considerable revenue for an industry which does not absorb an enormous amount of manpower or material. We are selling ideas rather than raw materials, even when they are translated into the form of the printed page or the bound book.
I also agree with what the hon. Member for Devizes said about art books. Here, the present position is somewhat ludicrous. We are allowed to import into this country original works of art, and every Government, from the Coalition Government to the present Government, has given special consideration to such works. I am in favour of that, but what I cannot understand is why there should be any discrimination against the reproduced work of art, especially when it is in a loose folder. The curious thing is that if a book of reproductions of famous American paintings comes to this country in a bound form that is accepted by the Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue as a book in the ordinary sense of the word. But if the reproductions are not bound into a volume, if they are loosely enclosed within a folder, then, apparently, they are not part of a book, and are subject to the ordinary Customs duty.
They are also subject to a curious tax which I thought had been abolished a long time ago—the ship's tax. Finally,


they have to pay Purchase Tax not merely on the imported price, but on the Customs duty and the ship's tax as well. That is a preposterous position. When you have publishers and firms of booksellers, and especially firms which combine those two functions, doing their utmost to encourage the free exchange of reproduced works of art by British and American artists, it is difficult for them to see what benefit accrues to anybody when they are hampered and strangled in this way.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this matter with sympathy and a desire to help in the interchange of the culture of the new world and the old. If he does that I am sure that a different result may accrue in a very short time. Yesterday, the Minister of Education dealt with the shortage of teachers, and pointed out that while enough young men were forthcoming to man the schools there was still an acute shortage of women. Of equal importance with the shortage of staff is the shortage of books for the children. We must see that through the efforts of British publishing houses, or our American friends, adequate books will be provided for our children, books which will stimulate the mind and the faculties and arouse in children an appreciation of beauty, whether in poetry or prose, or in the visual arts. I am sure that the issue which the hon. Member for Devizes has raised will receive sympathetic consideration from the Government.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Wyatt: I would also like to give my support to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who has raised an issue which is extremely important in many respects. I slightly disagree with him, however, as to whether or not there should be any limit at all on import licences for books. I agree that it would be desirable, if we were in a situation where we need not worry about the import of books, that there should be no limit to that. But the import of books has been running away with £3 million or million worth of dollars a year, and that is a serious consideration. Although the balance of trade with America is favourable to us, I think we have the right to make a choice, to be able to say, "We cannot afford the luxury of importing so much fiction, and

we must put a limit to it." I do not see why that should prevent America from importing our books.
In the way in which the restriction has been imposed a curious attitude towards the book trade has been displayed. Things seem to be done against books almost entirely without any sort of discrimination. When import licences for books are banned the matter is not gone into thoroughly to find out which should be banned and which should be continued. We now have the curious situation that there is no limit at all on the import of fiction, provided that the importer guarantees to re-export 50 per cent. of that fiction. It is very easy to re-export 50 per cent. of the fiction imported from the United States. It can be sent to the sterling area, but that does not necessarily bring us back any dollars. That is what will happen. People will import fiction from America, re-export 50 per cent. of it to the sterling area, and still sell the rest, in the form of pocket books and the like, at a good profit in Britain.
The situation with regard to technical books is somewhat different, and here is my chief complaint against the Government. A person may only import technical books up to his prewar quota. That is most unfair, because the quota of technical books imported before the war was very small. That is a bad period on which to base the present quota. The amount was small because English publishers then had far more paper, had no production difficulties, and were producing the books themselves. These books, scientific and technical books, are vital at the moment; we cannot afford to do without them. It is a most peculiar and arbitrary rule to say that a person may import as much fiction as he likes provided he re-exports 50 per cent. of it, but that he may only import technical books up to the quantity which he imported before the war. It is only because we have production difficulties here at this moment, combined with a shortage of paper, that we must import technical books at all——

Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the President of the Board of Trade told me on 13th November that licences are granted to prewar importers of scientific and technical books to import up to 100 per cent., by value, of their prewar im-


ports? I suggest for the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary that the value of those books in dollars is twice as great now, and that the figure ought to be 200 per cent. instead of 100 per cent.

Mr. Wyatt: I quite see the point which my hon. Friend has in mind. It is, of course, quite true, and it only makes it more ridiculous to fix a quota on the prewar period owing to the rising dollar cost of books.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade ought to reconsider the whole matter. He should put a limit on the amount of fiction that can be imported and re-exported. At the same time he should either take the limit off technical books altogether for a period of time in order to see whether it really would cost us a great deal of dollars, or, if he feels that it will cost us too much in dollars and he cannot afford even a trial period—although I should think it very doubtful—let him raise the amount of technical books which can be imported. Otherwise the result will be to stifle people who are engaged in research in universities and so on, because of not being able to get the technical books they need.
The way to obviate necessity to import books at all is to get the English book trade on its feet again. It is doing quite well. It is turning out perhaps more books even than it did before the war, although the books may be smaller in size. But there is still an enormous opportunity for expansion. I hope that among the cuts which may be under consideration in various fields of activity one cut will be avoided and that a notice will be posted up everywhere in the Board of Trade: "Never cut books. Whatever else we have to cut, don't cut books." Let us not cut the circulation of ideas and the stimulation of ideas. Let us keep them freely flowing the whole time. Let it be a motto of the Board of Trade that, among all the calamities and setbacks which we may have to experience they will despite them, contrive to increase the quota of paper and will never cut it. If we increase the paper quota, even if we have to import paper for the job, we can make almost ten times as much by exporting the paper when it has been printed as British books as it costs to import the paper in the first instance.

We are also, at the same time, obviating the need to import books from America.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I am in agreement with the opinions that have been expressed by the three hon. Members who have spoken. The point I wish to raise is rather different, although it is part and parcel of the same subject. It concerns a matter which was brought to my notice recently. A Scottish firm of printers had decided to bring out a new monthly magazine for boys and girls. The firm in question is of high repute in Scotland. What I have to say can in no way be considered as any criticism of what they have done, apart from what the Parliamentary Secretary may have to say afterwards. I have no interest in the industry. I want to make that clear before I give the Parliamentary Secretary the particulars which are germane to the case.
The monthly magazine is to be, if it is not already in operation, composed in Scotland, that is to say, compositors will set up the type for a monthly magazine of about 40 pages. Those 40 pages will be electro-typed, and, instead of being printed in Scotland, will be sent to Canada in the form of plates. They will be printed in Canada. The whole edition of 40,000 is to be produced in Canada and then it is to be exported from Canada to this country, to the extent of 75 per cent. of the edition, to be sold to the booksellers of Great Britain.
While all that may be necessary to the firm as a process of printing and publishing, especially in regard to the shortage of paper, I am wondering whether it is in the interests of our national economy that such a roundabout method of producing a monthly magazine for boys and girls should be followed. It will be printed in Canada and it will take up shipping space not once, but every month of the year. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain whether or not that is quite in order with all the rules and regulations of the book trade, whether this firm had to obtain a licence before being allowed to import the 30,000 or more copies of the monthly magazine, whether they have been in previous consultation with the Board of Trade, and whether the Board of Trade think it consistent.

Mr. McAllister: Will my hon. Friend allow me——

Mr. Naylor: I am just finishing, and my hon. Friend can follow me.

Mr. McAllister: I wondered whether my hon. Friend would agree that it is at least better that children's magazines should be printed in Canada and exported to this country, even at the expense of shipping space, than that a good deal of trashy and rubbishy American literature should come over in the same way?

Mr. Naylor: Yes, I say that I am in sympathy with a great deal of what hon. Members have said; yet this case seems to raise the question of shipping space. I agree that we must exclude all that my hon. Friend wishes to exclude, but still I should require an explanation from the Board of Trade whether what is proposed to be done, or perhaps is actually being done, is consistent with the national economy and with the policy of the Board of Trade, and whether it is consonant with the licensing system now prevailing in regard to these imports.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to take up the time of the House at this hour, but I wish to support what has been said with regard to importing knowledge in the form of scientific books. I have a number of friends and relations who, in one way or another, are engaged in scientific research. I do not know whether the Board of Trade fully realises the extent of the difficulty which is being caused by the limitation of imports of foreign scientific books to a prewar quota. In some fields of science there have been most remarkable advances during the war, made both by this and by other countries.
The necessities and shortages of war time have resulted in books being written and published in other countries about advances which were made in this country. This has been particularly so in the field of applied physics, in such matters as radar and atomic research. The literature on those subjects has very largely been published abroad, particularly in the United States, even in cases where the research work has actually been done in this country. The Board of Trade may say, "Yes, but does not a prewar quota meet the requirements of the

case?" The answer is that in some cases it does and in other cases it does not. The question is whether the Board of Trade is prepared to consider an extension of that quota in fields of the character which I have been describing, where, as a matter of fact, the prewar quota does not meet the requirements of learning and technical education in this country.
I want to say a word or two about those requirements. I have recently had a case in which a constituent of mine was prepared to enter into a transaction which I am going to mention later, because I think it has a very considerable bearing on the dollar difficulty. In that particular case the books to be imported were books principally concerned with the results of recent researches in physical fields on such subjects as radar and the like. I have some letters obtained by a bookseller dealing in this type of work from academic persons in Liverpool, who one and all wrote from what seemed to me to be an astonishingly large number of laboratories and departments to say that they were unable to get the books they needed for their research work and books needed for educational purposes. Research is, of course, one field in which these books are required, but they are also required in connection with technical education, whether at universities or technical schools. They are also required in connection with industry itself and in connection with the public service.
It may be said that the Board of Trade is well able to look after that, but I question whether the character of these books is fully appreciated. I once knew an extremely reactionary county councillor, who, when asked why his county council had no public library, replied that there was no demand for it. The answer of the Board of Trade, as regards scientific books, seems to me to suffer from the same defect. A demand of this sort is not usually associated with people conducting a special agitation. Though, no doubt, a public department will make a certain amount of noise, it does not always follow that the people engaged in technical research of this kind in connection with industry are also prepared to make it. After all, the Labour movement has for many years past laid stress on the advantages which science might bring to the ordinary people of this country, and, surely, it is particularly up to a Labour


Government not to shut the door on this kind of knowledge, not even to shut the door until someone knocks loudly on it; indeed, I should have thought it was up to them to make certain that a door of that kind was everywhere left open.
I turn for a minute to the dollar difficulty, and I am now going to give the instance which I mentioned a few moments ago. In this particular case, a constituent of mine is being pressed to export a particular kind of paper to the hard currency countries. He is finding considerable difficulty in doing so, because the market for it is somewhat limited, and he cannot sell that paper in the United States since the ordinary market price for it is considerably lower than the price which he would have to charge on any ordinary remunerative commercial basis after American tariff dues have been paid. He was prepared, and I believe still is, to enter into a transaction with some publishers, who on their side, would get leave to send their books here—and they did not ask for that particularly as a favour to themselves, but were anxious for it to be extended to all other publishers. They would send their books into this country, and, in return, would pay more dollars for this paper than would be spent in getting the books. The net result of that transaction would be a dollar gain to this country, and yet it has been refused. It may be that such a paper can be sold elswhere for hard currency, but the Board of Trade, as a matter of fact, has had evidence in this case that that is not so, and, if it is desired to make dollar profits, that is the only way to do it.
I do not put forward the case for any larger and unrestricted importation of scientific books, but I do most earnestly entreat the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter from two points of view: firstly he should consider the importance to learning in this country of letting that type of book become available, without unnecessary restrictions, and, when I say unnecessary restrictions, I cannot believe that, within such a limited field, unrestricted importation could do any harm whatever. The damage done now by restrictions of this kind is not merely to be measured in money and with certainty, but is an indefinable damage which may be, and probably is, extremely large, as is always the kind

of damage that is done by limiting the free flow of knowledge, not only within a country, but between one country and another.
I ask him to reconsider the whole question, and also, as a matter of machinery, to reconsider particularly the cases in which the import of any books can in fact be done without a serious dollar loss, and to make the machinery of the Board of Trade itself more elastic in order to facilitate transactions of that kind. Above all, I entreat him not to get up here this evening and give a positive and final "No" to representations which mean a very great deal to the spread of knowledge throughout the world, and which, in my belief, will encourage that international communion between scientists which is one of the surest foundations upon which peace may ultimately be built in this world. This is not a small mater, and it is not a small subject for Debate. Let not the Parliamentary Secretary, at any rate, say "No" tonight on something that merits further consideration, if ever any subject of Debate in this House did.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Wilkes: I would like to follow up a point made by the last speaker and say that one of the most serious factors in the present situation is the shortage of medical textbooks in our medical faculties. I have had representations made to me, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has had, from the heads of medical faculties to say that we in this country are in grave danger of falling behind others both in medical teaching and practice, through lack of the importation of that new research which has been embodied in American textbooks during the last six or seven years.
During the war, the production of medical textbooks in this country was seriously hindered, and we are now in a situation in which the medical textbook position in our medical faculties is seriously menacing the training of those doctors whom we now need in such greatly increased numbers to operate our own health and medical services. On this question of medical textbooks alone, the restriction on the importation of scientific books is really quite intolerable, and is menacing our whole future medical education. That is my first point in regard to the importation of these books.
The second point I want to stress is that the British Council abroad finds itself so much handicapped in its work because it is unable to obtain from this country the books which are so essential to support it in its work at the moment. Their work, of which I have some personal experience, is very much more important today in certain parts of Europe than it has ever been before. In countries which during the war, and even before the war, were cut off from the ideas of Western democracy, through the growth of totalitarian regimes, there was a great hunger at the end of the war to know what was being thought, and what had been written during the years which had seen a mental darkness spreading over their own countries. There was positive hunger in Greece and Italy for British books. It has been said that books are our best ambassadors. That certainly could have been true in both Italy and Greece. The British Council made many representations which, in the vast majority of cases, were without effect.
I would like to tell the House about a matter of considerable gravity. When the Germans withdrew from Athens, the bookshops were, naturally, emptied of German books. They went under the counter, and were hidden for about three or four months. There was a hiatus, during which no books could be bought in the Athens shops. But, as British Council and other representations went unheeded, the old German books came more and more into the Athenian shop windows, and when, months after the liberation, there were still no British books available in that part of the world, the German books were being sold openly once again.
In the battle for ideas which is today convulsing the world, the book trade in this country is more than a trade, and the Government must not look upon it merely as a commercial undertaking. On 9th May, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade hinted that one of the chief difficulties was the coal allocation to the printing trade. Now that the coal production figures are showing some considerable increase, I hope that the Board of Trade will realise that the exporting of British books will pay even as great a dividend as the exporting of British coal, and that the President of the Board of Trade will remember that in his policy.

The House will not be satisfied tonight with a mere reaffirmation of the position regarding the importation of scientific and medical textbooks. The present state of affairs is menacing the work of our faculties and of postwar education. I hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, we shall get a reply which will show us that the spirit of Philistinism, which we have seen on occasion hovering over the precincts of the Board of Trade, has at last been driven out by this Debate. Even though there are not many hon. Members present to participate in or listen to it, this is a most important Debate, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will treat this matter with the seriousness which it deserves.

8.4 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I always feel on these Adjournment Debates that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary very often comes down to the House with a set speech on the principle and on the main headings. He listens attentively to what is said, and inserts a word here and there in reply, but, in the main, gives the view of his Department on the matter under discussion. I would recommend to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tonight that, if he has any preconceived ideas on this matter, he should scrap them.
We have heard very strong pleas from both sides of the House in favour of this excellent Adjournment Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I think the House owes him a very great debt of gratitude for raising the subject. I frankly believe that a lot of the trouble is due to the fact that the Board of Trade have been so overwhelmed with work that they have not been able to give the consideration to this important matter which it deserves. I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will not, as has already been suggested, give any definite answer, but that he will go back to his Department and thrash out this matter carefully and in detail, weighing all that has been said about it. It is vitally important at the present time, in a world of misunderstanding and misrepresentation, that we should have the widest possible circulation of ideas through the medium of books, particularly the type of book which is produced in this country and in America. There we have the finest medium we can find.
The question of export and import licences was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. There, again, we are up against the typical disease which affects many Government Departments—that of not getting a move on, of delay, and of hampering tactics, so much in evidence these days. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to speed up these licences if he is unable to remove them completely, which, in our opinion, is what he should do. I realise his difficulty in relation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the question of dollar exchange, but I think it has already been pointed out to him by my hon. Friend that the balance in relation to books is in our favour. That is a very strong point.
There is no time to lose. We are very rapidly losing some of the markets of the world, and, if we once lose this market, we shall never regain it. It ought to be one of our finest exports. Coal has been considered in the past as our best export, but this is one which we can turn into a medium through which we can get either hard or soft currency. In other words, it can become one of our greatest exports. Therefore, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the whole question again, having regard to what has been said tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I rise to support the appeal which has been made to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to consider this matter in its true light. There is no doubt that it is highly essential, particularly at this time, to have as large a supply of scientific and technical books as we possibly can, not only for the reasons which have already been given, but also in order to satisfy that very great extension of interest which is being taken in study by men and women, particularly by those who have returned from the Forces. Today, the places in the universities are absolutely full. Not only is it necessary to have a supply of suitable books for the use of those students who have gone to the universities and to the technical colleges, but it is equally essential that, at this stage, books should be available for the large number of

persons who desire to study in extra-mural courses.
There are also a large number of men and women in the Forces who should be supplied with the necessary literature in order to enable them to pursue in a full and satisfactory way those courses which are being opened to them. I also wish to compliment the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) for having raised this matter, because it is a non-party matter. It is entirely outside the field of party politics. It stands high above any party conflicts or specific interests. It stands for the production of an essential need of the people, and for the purpose of getting the instrument to give knowledge and understanding necessary for scientific advancement. In addition, it stands for the provision of literature which is necessary for the mental advancement of the people and for the useful exercise of their leisure time. We in our Party have always advocated that leisure time should be used in a manner most beneficial to men and women. We find that there is a great shortage of the type of literature which should be available in order to comply with that requirement.
An interesting point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn). In a reply which was given to him he was informed that the value of the imports of scientific books which are permitted at present would be the same as was permitted prewar. A question arises here of considerable importance. If my hon. Friend says that the word "value" means the actual monetary consideration to be paid for such books allowed to be brought in, the effect is that he is cutting to a considerable extent the actual quantity of books we are importing. If on the other hand—I should like to have a reply because it is important for future purposes to know exactly what is meant—he means by the word "value" the value in quantity of the books imported, it places the situation on a different basis.
1 would remind him that the recent report of the Barlow Commission said that we must double our scientific personnel in order to comply with present requirements. That would mean that the number of scientific books, even in so far as prewar supply is concerned, must be extended. It is within my experience that professors who have the duty of training future scientists find it impossible


to carry on their work without importing the necessary books, and at present they find it impossible to obtain them from abroad. I hope my hon. Friend will give this appeal his fullest consideration. He knows, no doubt, that the Parliamentary Scientific Committee is preparing some further material for him. I hope he will act in anticipation of obtaining that material and ascertain for himself that the need is imminent.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I would like to add my plea to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should not, in his reply, give a direct negative to the proposals that have been made. I suggest that he would enhance his reputation, and the reputation of this House and Government, and the Board of Trade, if he were prepared to say that, in view of the representations which have come from different sides of the House, he is prepared to reconsider the matter, and see what can be done to meet those proposals.
I would like also to enter a plea on behalf of the free flow of fiction books. I do not dissent for one moment from what has been said about the importance of the free flow of medical, scientific and technical books.
I think it can also be argued in a certain sense, that the development of the mind of the world has been, if anything, more affected by the free flow of books of fiction than of books of science—at any rate as much as by the free flow of opinion on scientific knowledge. I heard an excellent broadcast recently by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), with which I almost entirely disagreed in every particular. He argued very powerfully that if statesmen wanted to discover a clue to the enigma we feel about Russian policy we should discover it by reading Dostoevski. There may be something in that argument, and I think it could be applied in other directions. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to think that we should discriminate against works of fiction.
The Parliamentary Secretary may have to consider that we are in great difficulty and that we have to save dollars by every means. I entirely agree. I voted in favour of every proposal the Government has made for the saving of dollars. I even voted for the cut in newsprint,

although it injures a profession in which I am interested. I would, however, plead that books are in a different category even from newsprint, because a cut in newsprint, distressing as it is to the Government and every one else, does not affect the free flow of opinions between the nations as much as the restriction upon the import and export of books. Therefore, I think it would be a great thing for this country if, at a time of crisis such as this, it could be announced that after deliberation and discussion in this House we had come to the conclusion that books are in a quite separate category; and while we cannot do the same in other directions, we are going to make a complete exception in the case of books. I think it would be a fine thing for the Board of Trade and for this country to be able to say that, and I am sure it would have the best possible reaction in the United States of America.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to make such a proposal, I hope that he and his Department will act in the future more as defenders of the book trade, because I think there are many things that could be done in the future even if we cannot have the removal of this licensing system, to ease this situation. I believe it would be of value if at all times when we are discussing aid to Europe and Britain with the United States of America, under the Marshall Plan, or some other plan, there was some department in the Board of Trade which would be looking out for an opportunity of saying, "Can we have in this arrangement a special allocation of money in order to ensure that the free flow of opinion shall be encouraged to the maximum?"
There are many people in the United States of America who would approve of that proposal. A report was recently presented to the President of the United States on human rights and the protecting of the rights of free speech and publication in America. I think the eminent people who drew up that document would be only too glad to support such proposals as I have suggested in any future plan in which we may participate. I hope the Board of Trade will not look upon themselves merely as persons who have to impose restrictions on the book trade. They should do everything in their power to encourage complete freedom and flow


of opinion across the frontiers of the nations.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Follick: I wish to make a special plea for one class of book. We constantly hear references to the desirability of expanding our exports and trade with foreign countries, and we are very short in this country of foreign language dictionaries. Wherever one goes, in any part of the country, there are complaints in all the schools that they cannot get foreign language dictionaries. The best dictionaries and language teaching books used to come from Germany, especially from Leipzig, and I wish to make a special plea to the Board of Trade, for their own sake and for the sake of expansion of trade—and with the expansion of trade one must accept the necessity to learn foreign languages—that dictionaries should not only be allowed to come into the country, but should be encouraged to come into the country, because by doing that we shall be assisting our own exports through helping people to learn foreign languages. For the moment, this is being held up because of the great shortage of textbooks and dictionaries.

8.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I hasten, in the first place, to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) that I have not come here with a lot of preconceived notions or with a typewritten speech to read to the House. I always welcome the raising of matters of importance on the Adjournment, and I certainly welcome the discussion of this matter tonight. I also assure the House, and in particular my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who may have been getting me mixed up with his ignorant county councillor, that I am not at all a Philistine in these matters. I appreciate the need for books, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot); I am not certain that it is possible to draw a hard-and-fast line between the value of the technical and scientific book and the value of the book of fiction or of poetry. They all have their place in the scheme of things.
I am only too anxious—and I think I have demonstrated my anxiety in a practical fashion on previous occasions—to do

all I can to secure the most adequate supply of books for the people of our country, and from our country to the people of other countries. We began this evening by discussing the importation of books, and later in the Debate a number of hon. Members, some of whom were not here when the Debate began, rather got away from the subject of the importation of books and discussed their exportation. I am anxious to encourage that process, too. I am anxious to build up the production of books in this country, but there are difficulties which are well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House. They are difficulties over which neither I nor anybody else has a great deal of control, such as the shortage of paper; but within the limitations imposed upon us by the shortages of raw materials and of labour—and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) agreed that there is a shortage of book-binding capacity, which involves the question of labour and of machinery—we are anxious to do all we can to stimulate the free flow of knowledge and understanding between our people and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) asked me two specific questions. He wanted to know whether an importer could bring in up to 100 per cent. of what he was bringing in before the war, and whether that referred to value or to volume. It refers to value, of course, and I give him his point that, with the rise of prices, it obviously means a diminution in the amount of literature coming in. He also asked me if I would pay very close regard to the case which is being prepared by the Parliamentary Scientific Committee for submission to the Board of Trade. Of course, I shall have the utmost regard for what is said in the report of that Committee, as I intend when this Debate is concluded to study all the points which have been raised by all hon. Members who have spoken.

Mr. Janner: Would my hon. Friend give a reply to the question of doubling the amount?—because undoubtedly the value of books, in terms of value in the ordinary sense, is half the value of the books which were purchased before the war.

Mr. Belcher: I gave my hon. Friend that point, but I cannot give him the reply that he wants I cannot create a precedent which I would be doing if, in the course


of an Adjournment Debate, I agreed to reconsider this matter. The immediate factor is our dollar shortage. It would be very easy to say that we ought really to double it because the price has gone up; but with the best will in the world, and even though I entirely agree with everything that has been said about the importance of the free flow of knowledge and understanding, it is extremely difficult to justify doubling the amount of books which can be imported into this country from America, for instance, to people who are having to suffer reductions in their staple foods because we have not got the dollars to pay for those foods. It might be argued that food for the mind is more important than food for the body. Everybody is entitled to his own views on that subject, but it makes my task no easier when I am considering what can be done in these matters.

Mr. Blackburn: Perhaps I might be allowed to state that it has been accepted by the Committee as a general principle that the reductions in capital expenditure should not, broadly speaking, affect scientific and technical study.

Mr. Belcher: We were discussing just now the question of importing books from abroad and doubling the quantity, because the price had doubled.

Mr. Janner: No, not doubling the quantity.

Mr. Belcher: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon; I meant doubling the value. I have already agreed with my hon. Friend; I have told him so, and I do not think the point needs labouring. But that has nothing to do with the capital expenditure upon education or anything else in our own country.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two of the specific questions which have been asked. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) mentioned a monthly magazine for boys and girls which was composed in Scotland, sent across to Canada to be printed and then brought back into the country to the extent of 75 per cent., and he suggested that that was not a very sensible thing to do. I do not know anything about this particular case. I shall be very glad to have details and look into it. From my knowledge of the situation, I should rather imagine that the difficulty there is one of obtaining paper, that the paper

simply does not exist in this country, that we have no means of getting it, and that as paper exists in Canada the books are printed in that country. As I say, if my hon. Friend will let me have the details I will look into the matter, because at first hearing it sounds as though there is something rather peculiar about the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering seized on the differentiation which exists between scientific and technical works, and works of fiction. It is the case that during this year it has been possible to import into this country more or less freely works of fiction, on condition that 50 per cent. of them are re-exported. Quite rightly it was pointed out that that might mean importing considerable quantities of fiction from the United States of America for scarce dollars, and we might be sending them out of the country to soft currency areas. I will certainly look into that point because it appears to be a very obvious point to be taken up. I repeat that, while I will look at these two schemes, I do not think it would be wise—and there are two points here—for the President of the Board of Trade or me to set ourselves up as judges in this matter. I do not think it would be right, for this is, in many respects, a matter of taste, and even when it is not a matter of taste, I do not think that either my right hon. Friend or I ought to want to set ourselves up as judges. Nor do I think—and this is the other point—that it is possible, as I said just now, in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, that we can draw a hard-and-fast line between works of fiction and technical and scientific works.

Mr. Blackburn: I am very appreciative of what my hon. Friend has said, but it has now been determined by the Government here not to cut down on the technical and scientific side while cutting down on the other. That is the effect of the Government's decision. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that later.

Mr. Belcher: I am not being dogmatic about this matter at all. I am trying to point out that there are these very great difficulties. Let me say on the general issue that I do appreciate that there is a great shortage of books at the present time. I know that my hon. Friend the


Member for Central Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Wilkes) is correct when he talks about the shortage of books for our university faculties. I receive almost daily complaints from Members of Parliament and others, and from learned societies, about their inability, or their constituents' inability, to get hold of books. I feel very sorry about it, and I want to do all I can to assist.
I agree that books are in a different category from other goods. The hon. Member for Devizes opened with that point. He pointed out that in normal conditions the traffic between ourselves and the United States of America gave us a favourable balance. I believe that to be the case. But I must make this point to him: our present dollar situation is really extremely serious indeed; and I think that the view of the Government would have to be that, even if books were making a valuable contribution to our present dollar income, in that we had a surplus of dollars derived from the sale of British books in the United States of America, we ought not to lay it down that the dollars earned by the sale of British books must necessarily be equated with the amount of pounds earned in this country. Dollars earned must go into the general pool from which we buy our foodstuffs, raw materials and other things. I look forward to the time when paper, printing machinery and other things are in good supply, so that we can build up our book production, so that we can, possibly, increase our supply of books to other countries, and so bring more into this country.

Mr. Hollis: It is not quite as simple as that. Is it not true to say that if we are able to keep in touch with American thought, we are able to sell more books in America? It is not as though we had a fixed amount of sales of books.

Mr. Belcher: As a general proposition I should agree with that, in more normal times. It would, however, be extremely difficult to increase our sales of books to America at the present time, for the very good reason that we cannot produce in this country enough books either for ourselves or for export. The hon. Member for Devizes referred to the import licensing system and the delays that have taken

place. I confess that I know that he is perfectly right: there has been considerable delay in the Import Licensing Department for some time now, not only in connection with import licences for books but in connection with import licences generally. The truth that I have to tell the House is that the Import Licensing Department, for the amount of work it has to do, is grievously understaffed. I like to make that point because we so often hear that there are far too many civil servants. In the Import Licensing Department there are apparently far too few, and so delays are occasioned by the immensity of the work which they have to do, with the shortage of staff to do the work. The delays are very irritating, I know, to those who suffer from them. I shall certainly look into the general position, and if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has particular cases of difficulty and will refer them to me, I shall certainly do what I can to assist in getting up some speed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) raised a number of matters, and one concerning shipping. I do not think I can deal with that in the course of an Adjournment Debate. If he will give me a note of those matters, I will do my best to give him satisfaction.
Almost every hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate has asked me not to give a flat "No" to what has been said. I certainly do not propose to do so. On the other hand, I do not propose to be dishonest, and pretend to the House that it is going to be possible to give any great alleviation immediately in this matter. I am so conscious of the difficulties of our foreign exchange situation that it would be entirely wrong of me to pretend that within a matter of a few weeks or months everything in the garden will be lovely. I am quite prepared to look into all the points which have been raised this evening. I am only too anxious to do as much as I can to improve the situation, and the various suggestions which have been made will be very carefully gone into, and in so far as it is possible for anything to be done—particularly by way of increasing the supplies of books which are most needed, including scientific and technical works—I shall be prepared to do my very best.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend at least make the position for technical books


no worse than it is for fiction? In other words, will he not at least allow the same privilege to the importers of technical books as of fiction—to import as much as they like provided they re-export 50 per cent?

Mr. Belcher: I think I can give the hon. Member this undertaking: When I said I did not want to try to draw a hard-and-fast line between fiction and technical books, I did not mean to say that the position could remain exactly as it is at present. I believe there is a case for some slight weighting of the scales on the side of technical works, and I am prepared to look into the suggestions made to see if anything could be done in the meantime.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the particular point which I put as regards a dollar exchange transaction? I suggested to him a particular case in which the result would be not a dollar loss but a dollar profit. I am not asking him to give a decision now, but in the light of what has been said tonight is he prepared to look into that case again and into the general question of whether more can be done on those lines?

Mr. Belcher: My hon. and learned Friend got rather lost among the other hon. Members who have spoken. I did have it in mind to say something with regard to the particular case which he has mentioned. Although I understand that has been referred to the Board of Trade, it has not been referred to me, and if it is so referred, I will certainly look into it.

WAR CRIMINALS (REMOVAL FOR TRIAL)

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: At the very outset, I apologise to the Government for having given them such short notice of my intention to raise this matter. However, as everybody who is familiar with this House knows, if a back bencher does not seize these opportunities when they are offered he may have to wait many a long day before he can raise topics which, for him, are of vital importance. Indeed, on this occasion, while I am still hoping it will be possible for the Under-Secretary to come here to reply, I would have been prepared to have put off my opportunity

but for the fact that men's lives are at stake—and at stake every day. It is not a question of waiting till next week, because things are being done about which the Foreign Office know, and about which I have been in negotiation with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary for a very considerable period.
One of the instances I shall mention dates back to 17th May, and I think it is about time the people really knew some of the things which are being done, or which look like being done, in their name. I am not complaining that the Foreign Office are not sympathetic, but I really believe that if this House knew some of the things I shall say tonight they would assert their views in no uncertain manner. Tonight, I am not so much concerned with the application of the law on these international affairs, as that the people who are concerned in the question, particularly of forcible repatriation, shall get fair play. Even if I can get nothing but a formal reply tonight I shall be happy, because then I shall feel that I have at least ventilated the situation so that other hon. Members know what it is all about.
The first, the most simple and least obnoxious of the three questions concerns ex-German prisoners of war who are now detained in a detention camp in Germany called Adelheide, which is near Bremen. These people are not detained there for anything they have done; they are not detained because they are war criminals, or suspected war criminals: They are detained because it is thought that they might do something. In other words, it is our old friend Regulation 18B again.
The contention of these men is that they were captured as prisoners of war, and that under Clause 49 of the Geneva Convention, the detaining Power is not entitled to deprive them of their rank. I do not want to repeat the old story again, but the Attorney-General will insist that we are still at war with Germany, and therefore that we are at war with the Control Commission, because that is the legal government of Germany. These men maintain it is an intolerable position that they should be "defrocked," as it were, of their uniforms and rank, and should be retained as civilians under conditions which are not really very attractive. They say that they do not like detention, but if


we still continue to detain them because we are entitled to do that under the Geneva Convention as peace has not been signed, we must also either comply with the other part of the Convention and not debar them from being treated as prisoners of war, or send them back to Germany and hand them over to German civilian authorities in their own country. I hope that I shall have an answer on, that sometime in the future.
The conditions of their detention are anything but satisfactory. The camp in which they are detained is an old Luftwaffe camp. It has been disgracefully torn to pieces, I regret to say, while it was occupied by displaced persons. So much of it has been destroyed, that there is really inadequate decent living accommodation, and quite senior people are heaped together, four and five in a room, which anyone would think quite inadequate for a sixth form boy at a public school. Because they are regarded as civilians, they are made to carry out all the dirty work in the camp. They do not mind doing their own dirty work, but they also have to do the dirty work of the German police, and anyone who knows anything about the situation in Germany, will know what that means. I ask whether I can have some reasonable answer to that question at some future date, and whether at least something will be done about the living conditions. I hope that serious attention will also be paid to the claim of these men that they are still prisoners of war, and that so long as they are maintained under British control, they should be granted the full status of prisoners of war.
My second point concerns a matter I raised in this House on 26th November. I thought that I got a satisfactory answer on that occasion, which is a very rare thing, although I do not blame the Ministers, because they cannot help it. This was a very good answer. I asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:
Whether he is aware that persons detained for suspected war crimes at Hamburg Fishbeck are liable to be returned to the country of origin of the person against whom the offence was committed; and how he reconciles this practice with the accepted ruling that war criminals are to be tried in the countries where the crimes were committed.
The reply I received from the Under-Secretary of State was: "No it was not

so." In other words, that they were not being sent back to be tried in the country of origin of the person against whom the offence was committed. He said:
No. It is the practice for war criminals to be tried in the countries where the crimes were committed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1947; Vol. 444, c. 290.]
That was fine, but two days later I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State, from which it appears that this decision was reversed. He states:
In my view, the Moscow Declaration was not designed to cover crimes committed in Germany. The relevant passage stated that Germans who had taken part in war crimes 'will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done, in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free governments which will be set up therein.'
Here we have some 2,000 men—the last time I was there was at the beginning of October—who are either identified war criminals or are suspected of having committed war crimes. I do not complain about the camp conditions. They have an admirable camp commandant, and the conditions of life are perfectly all right, so far as they can be in detention, but there is this big complaint that they have understood—and I have always understood—that the intention of the Yalta Agreement, and the subsequent enlargement of it at Moscow, was that war criminals should be sent for trial in the country where the crime was committed. That is perfectly fair. I think that it was also intended that, when they arrived at the other end, they should also get a fair trial. That is another point, however, which I will come to in my third case.
What is happening is that in addition to sending these German men back—some civilians, some ex-soldiers and some soldiers who have not yet been demobilised—to the scene of their crimes for trial, we are also returning men who were said to have committed crimes against the people of other nations in Germany to the country of origin of the person against whom the crime was committed. That surely is wrong. For example, a German is alleged to have committed a crime against a Pole in Hanover. To me it is absurd to say that he has to go to Warsaw to be tried. Most of the evidence is available in Hanover from the German-speaking population, the accused man is a German, and he is in his own country. His only chance of defending himself is


to produce evidence from the German population and to have his own German advocate. But he is neither allowed to take witnesses with him to Warsaw, nor is he allowed to take his advocate.
We get the most unfair situation that a man may be had up for an alleged crime, and be sent where he has no chance of defending himself, to be tried in an altogether different country. I submit that that was never the intention of the Moscow understanding or of the Yalta Agreement. I recollect that in this House it has often been argued by lawyers, of whom I am not one, that "The moment you specify you also exclude." I remember arguments on the Education Bill, when people tried to get their pet equipment put into the schools—some wanted wireless sets and others cinemas—that the moment you specified that schools must have cinemas, if you did not also specify that they must also have baths, they could not be allowed to have baths, because once you specify you exclude. Therefore if the crime was committed in Germany, they should be tried in Germany.
The reason why the Moscow Agreement was set up was because it was realised that it would be unfair against people against whom crimes were committed in foreign countries, if the people were not tried in the countries where the alleged crimes were committed. I do not object to that, but I think that it is utterly wrong to take people up and send them away where they have not got their evidence and have not got their defence.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by a fair trial?

Mr. Stokes: I will not try to slip over that one, but I am complaining at the moment at this application of the Moscow finding. It is absurd in this House to quote instances for which one cannot give chapter and verse, but I want the House to know that very responsible people in Germany—British people—some of them responsible for the detention of these people, have told me that they are fairly confident that the people who are turned out and handed over for export—if it is not too nasty a term to use in connection with human beings—in their opinion, in practically every case, have never crossed the frontier but have been "bumped off" before they got there.

Mr. Sargood: Can the hon. Member inform the House whether his informant gave him specific cases?

Mr. Stokes: I am going back on Saturday, and I am trying to get specific cases. I would be glad to inform not only the House but my hon. Friend when I get them. This came hot from the horse's mouth, and I do not think there is any doubt about it. I hope to get something of greater detail which will be published when I conic back. I hope my hon. Friend on the Treasury bench will press the Foreign Secretary to see that this misapplication of the Moscow finding is stopped. It is quite clear to my mind that it was never intended to be handled in that way, and I hope a decision will be taken at once and that the camp commandants will be told immediately because this thing is going on day by day.
The third matter in the same sort of style which I want to bring up deals with the Yugoslavs of whom there are still about 100 in the Munster lager somewhere halfway between Hamburg and Hanover. I took this matter up in May with the Minister of State, who, I think, was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the question of the forcible repatriation of these people from Italy. At that time, owing to the fact that Italy was under the dual control of America and ourselves, forcible repatriation could not take place, because, after one or two cases, the Americans clamped down on it and refused to agree to anyone being forcibly repatriated on any ground whatsoever, which is my point of view.
I am not suggesting that, where there is a bad man who has really done wicked, evil things like murder and torture, he should be put up at a Ritz Hotel and allowed to stay there in luxury. I say that the principle behind all this is that these arrangements were that the criminals should be sent to be tried in the place where the crime was committed always on the understanding that they would get a fair trial when they got there in accordance with the laws then existing in that country. If it were found, in fact, that a repatriated person was not getting a fair trial then not one more would be sent back. I take it that that was the reason, though I am not in touch with the State Department, why the Americans


refused after one or two instances to send anybody back from Italy.
Time passed, and owing to the fact that we had to get out of Italy by the end of July because the Peace Treaty was signed, the question arose as to what what would happen to all these people who were milling about in Italy, and there were still a number of them there. Eventually it was decided to transfer some 15,000, I think, from the displaced persons' camps in Italy to the British zone in Germany. Of course, this pleased these people because they thought that they were getting further way from danger through going West and that everything would be all right. Of course, that was not it at all. I saw this point and I put it into my correspondence with the Foreign Office. These people because they were going further to the West were not going out of danger at all. In Italy the dual writ of the United States and ourselves ran, but in the British zone only the British writ runs. The people who were transferred from the camps in Italy to the camps in Germany had only to be sent on at British direction. I am not accusing the Foreign Secretary of doing that, but it would seem like that particularly to the people who have been transferred.
There are about 100 of these people. Thirty-nine of them, according to the Under-Secretary, are to be let out immediately because they are not identifiable with anybody on a particular list against whom there is said to be a crime. There are still 100 of them left and their cases are under consideration now. I want to remind the House that that part of the world always was in a mess. I well remember the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) during the war coming down to this House and standing at the Box saying with a light on his face that he had great news that morning for the House and the country because a young nation had found its soul. These were the people about whom I am speaking. They came in and fought for us against the Germans. Subsequently, when Tito came they fought against him too. I do not deny that.
I am not arguing individual cases but the principle. I do not know the individual cases. I have had stacks of papers sent to me but I am not competent to judge the facts unless I am given all

the evidence, which naturally enough the Foreign Office are not prepared to hand over to me. There is always a muddle in Yugoslavia. I remember that when the right hon. Member for Woodford said that I made the simple monosyllabic remark, "Bunk." I had quite recently returned from that area and I knew that those people always fought one another and were always in a frightful mess, and the idea of any kind of unity among them was absurd, as in fact proved to be the case.
What has happened is this. Some thousands of these people were brought over to the British zone of Germany from whom this small handful of people have been weeded as being wanted on a list sent in by the Yugoslav Government. They have been screened. The process of screening means that the individual is told the reason why he is wanted. As far as I understand—I cannot verify this because I have not been there since the screening—he is given as much information as the Foreign Office have about his case, and when the screening is completed, the case goes for consideration to the Commander-in-Chief or the legal Department at Herford in Germany. I do not want to say anything against an hon. and gallant Member of this House or any of the screening team. I want to put it this way, that if I were a suspect—I might well be one day; we never know—and I found that I was to be tried or screened by people who had been my political enemies only—the sort of thing they do in Northern Ireland—however honourable I thought the chap or the members of the screening team, I would still think them unsuitable people to act as a jury for me. Surely that is right?
I am afraid that this screening team contains a lot of people who are pro-Tito, which means that all the poor fellows locked up in close confinement—there is no question of their getting out—are being examined by their enemies. That makes the screening unsatisfactory. However much we may assure them that everyone in the team is of top class honour, they are always so terrified lest in the course of giving their reasons why they are not the person whom they are thought to be or why they did not do the things alleged to have been done, they will complicate matters for other people in Yugoslavia against whom retri-


butive action will be taken if the information gets out. With the complication of having screeners they distrust and the fear that something will get back to Yugoslavia, possibly they do not always make their best case at their screening.
Assume that somebody must be sent back. I do not accept that, but I assume it for the purpose of this argument. He has been screened, examined and interrogated, and the legal authorities under the British Army in Germany have decided that he is a person who on account of his actions ought to go back to Yugoslavia. Before the man is sent back, he ought to be told the actual reasons why the legal authorities came to that decision and if he still has something up his sleeve, should be given an opportunity to say what it is. They all know they will be bumped off if they go back. None of them is in any doubt at all that he is going back to certain death—every one of them, innocent and guilty, and some of them very well-known people. Knowing they are going to be bumped off, probably they will come clean if given this opportunity and will divulge any further information they may have which may be in defence of themselves. They might not—I do not know—but certainly they should be told the specific reasons, not just before they are being handcuffed and shoved into a train, but in time to enable them to say that they have another argument which should be considered before they are hurried off to their death.
I should prefer the Foreign Secretary to recognise that nobody should be sent back to Yugoslavia at the present time for the very simple reason that there are no fair trials there. Others may think otherwise, but the laws of advocacy have been altered there. It is now laid down in Yugoslavia that a competent advocate may not act primarily in the interests of the person he is defending, but in the interests of the State. That of course is fantastic. I have not managed to get the law but I have written for it and it may come some day. I will quote what a paper called "Politika," published in Belgrade on the 30th December, 1946, says about the new form of advocacy applicable now. With regard to the advocate, it says:
His sole duty is to discover the truth in a concrete case in collaboration with the organs of public authority. In this quality

his only counsel to his client is that he must truthfully expose all the facts, in order to discover the truth and justice. In this manner advocacy rises and becomes an excellent collaborator of public authority.
Of course it does, but it does not give the poor defendant much chance. The newspaper article concludes:
In all important offices of the State there are former advocates of our country. In removing the unconscientious, a new type of advocacy must be created—public advocacy.
So my claim is not that these chaps, if we really think they are bad hats, should be set free and allowed to roam at large over Europe, but that they should be detained until we can be satisfied that they get a fair trial on right lines.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I interrupt once more in order to get clear what my hon. Friend regards as a fair trial? Would he, for example, regard the Nuremburg trials as fair trials of war criminals?

Mr. Stokes: No, I would not accept the Nuremburg trials——

Mr. Speaker: Might I interrupt here? I have listened with some attention. On these Adjournment Debates there must be some responsibility on a Minister of this country and not on a Minister of another country.

Mr. Stokes: The argument I am submitting, Mr. Speaker, is not that I am appealing to the Foreign Secretary to get the Yugoslav Government to change its mind, but to say that he is wrong in his interpretation of a decision at Yalta or Moscow that people should be sent back for trial unless they get a fair crack of the whip when they get there. I am not bringing in the Foreign Secretary of a foreign Power at all; I am merely saying that so long as a fair trial is not the order of the day in these countries, then the Foreign Secretary, in whose power these people are at the present time, should not send them back.

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order. I am anxious to get an elucidation of that Ruling because it is a matter of grave importance. I find great difficulty with the Chair in getting questions through about what is happening in Europe for the very reason, Sir, that you have stated tonight. I hope that your Ruling does not involve the fact that we must not refer


to events which are occurring in foreign countries merely because we cannot directly saddle the Minister with responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: The Rule of the Adjournment is quite clear, that there must be Ministerial responsibility here, and any comments made on that must refer to Ministerial responsibility. We may not talk about affairs in foreign countries unless we have some direct interest here.

Mr. Stokes: I am only referring to actions in Yugoslavia in support of my argument that the Foreign Secretary should continue the detention of anybody he considers to have a prima facie case against him, because that is what the legal people decided—that they should be continued in detention in Germany until we can satisfy ourselves that there is a fair trial at the other end. I do not suggest for a moment that it is the Foreign Secretary's responsibility to arrange a fair trial. He cannot control that. At the same time this ruling was made before the situation with regard to advocacy was changed. The change in the laws took place in Autumn, 1946, which was years after these people were captured.
In conclusion, the attitude of mind which has been expressed to me since I first took up this case that we are only sending really bad men back, men whom we would condemn ourselves here, does not seem to me to meet the case at all. I quite agree, if there is a prima facie case, the man ought to go back if he gets a fair trial, but it is not for us to excuse ourselves Pontius Pilate-like by saying, "If he were tried here, this chap would be for the gallows." That will not do. That is the Foreign Secretary acting as gaoler, counsel for the defence, counsel for the prosecution, jury, judge and executioner. It is surely quite a wrong approach. I ask my hon. Friend to ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to search the records of these rulings, whatever they may be, and to have regard to what other countries are doing. The United States, particularly, are refusing to send anyone back at all, because they are not satisfied that they would get a fair trial. If my right hon. Friend does that, I believe he will be striking a real blow in the interests of humanity.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Erie Fletcher: I think the House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has rendered a considerable service in raising this subject on the unexpectedly early adjournment we have had this evening. I am not sure that I am in agreement with his remarks because, for one thing, it was not obvious to me to what conclusion his remarks led. I gathered from what he said that he did not regard the Nuremberg trials as being fair trials of war criminals. He was objecting to any war criminals being sent back to some countries, but I am not sure what he would do with them.

Mr. Stokes: May I make the point quite clear? I find the greatest difficulty in deciding who is a war criminal. For example, is the man who lets off an atomic bomb a war criminal, or not? That may be a great crime against humanity.

Mr. Fletcher: Very often these things can be illustrated by a particular example, and it may serve the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind, and perhaps the interests of the House, if I refer to a specific case of a war criminal which I raised in a Question to my right hon. Friend but which, unfortunately for me, was dealt with by way of a circulated reply on Monday of this week, thereby depriving me of the opportunity of pursuing it further. But I will do so now, in order to illustrate the principle which we are discussing. I have in mind the case of Dr. Wedislaw Dering, a German subject, who is on the list of serious war criminals that had been prepared by three different countries. His name appears in three lists, the United Nations War Crimes Commission No. 13 of August, 1945, No. 16 of November, 1945, and No. 50 of December, 1946. Each time the charges were listed against him by Czechoslovakia, by France, and by Poland. His name also appears on a list of perpetrators of crime at the notorious Auschwitz Concentration Camp compiled by the United States authorities in Germany.
Not unnaturally, pursuant to the Moscow decisions on war criminals, Czechoslovakia, France and Poland have all applied for the extradition of this gentleman, who happens to be in this country at the present time, as a serious


war criminal listed by Czechoslovakia, France, Poland and the United States. His extradition has been asked for in order that, in accordance with the Moscow decisions on war criminals, he shall be handed over to be judged on the spot by the people whom he has outraged. As he cannot be handed over to the Poles, to the French and to the Czechs, the French and Czech Governments have not unnaturally ceded their claims for extradition in favour of Poland because his offences were committed in Poland at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp against Poles.
What are the offences? Whilst we are all agreed that we are anxious to see justice done, and anxious not to have people sent back where we can be certain they will not get a fair trial, we are equally concerned to see war criminals brought to justice. The offences against humanity of Dr. Wedislaw Dering are notorious. His name is notorious among the former inmates of the death camp at Auschwitz, notably in Poland, France and Czechoslovakia. There is hardly a book or memoir about that concentration camp in which his name is not mentioned. In one book, published in Italy, he is described as a "main expert in murdering people." A book by Dr. Philip Friedmann, who was himself imprisoned in this camp, states that "castration operations were performed by German S.S. camp doctors and by a prison doctor, Dr. Dering, who was released from prison at the beginning of 1944." He is accused by these respective Governments of having carried out sterilisation and similar pseudo-scientific operations on a vast scale, causing indescribable sufferings to his victims, of having selected people for the gas chambers, and of having generally treated camp inmates in a most cruel and inhuman way. He is accused of having performed numerous experimental operations on men and women inmates, which caused their death or resulted in permanent mutilation.
I prefer to spare the House from further details of the outrages perpetrated by this serious war criminal, for whose extradition the Polish, French and Czech Governments have all asked, and for whose extradition the Poles are now pressing. When I raised this question in the House on Monday, I learned, with considerable surprise, that apparently the

Foreign Secretary, so far from granting the extradition that had been asked for, was proposing to release him in this country before long. If I may quote from the answer I was given, the Foreign Secretary stated that unless the Polish Ambassador produced additional evidence.
His Majesty's Government will have no alternative but to release Dr. Dering on 1st January unless the further evidence asked for is forthcoming by that date.

Mr. Stokes: I have got part of the evidence in some individual cases, but not all, and that is why I kept off individual cases. May I ask my hon. Friend if he will assure me that he has all the evidence in this case?

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot be sure that I have all the evidence in this case. I am hoping that by ventilating one case we may get all the evidence in one case, and so test the principle that concerns my hon. Friend as to who is to decide what is to happen to these serious war criminals. Is the Foreign Secretary to decide, or is he, in accordance with our treaty obligations, where there is a prima facie case, to hand them over to the Government of the country where the crimes have been committed, or is he, if he is not satisfied about it, to release them—set them free at large in this country?
In this particular case, it so happens that both on the testimony of three foreign Governments, and on the recorded testimony of various individuals in a number of books, there would seem to be abundant prima facie evidence. Is conclusive proof about the matter wanted? What does the Foreign Secretary say? That he is not satisfied that there is a prima facie case against Dr. Dering. He goes on:
… since there was also a considerable volume of evidence in his favour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 17.]
It seems to me an extraordinary commentary on our determination at the end of the war that we would bring war criminals to justice that this kind of position should now be reached. I do not know how many war criminals there are in this country. I imagine that there are not very many, but I was told that in the British zone of Germany there are between 200 and 300 whose cases, for one reason or another, have not been decided. To what length is the Foreign Secretary entitled to go before requiring further


evidence from the foreign Governments concerned, whether it is Poland, France, or Czechoslovakia?
If we are to adhere to the principles laid down at Moscow with regard to war criminals, then where the Government are supplied, as in this and no doubt in other cases, with prima facie evidence, they should either be extradited to the country where, in accordance with the Moscow decisions, it was arranged that the trial should take place, or some other procedure for their trial should be adopted. These people should either be brought to justice or be given an opportunity of clearing themselves. I would regard it as most unsatisfactory if the position were left where it is today in cases like the one I have mentioned.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) who, on many occasions, has raised very unpopular causes always in accordance with the tradition of this country, which is to try to give, wherever possible, the benefit of the doubt to anyone who is on any charge, particularly a political charge. May I say to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that it is most unfortunate to go into particular cases. I have taken some note of the case which my hon. Friend mentioned. If the Foreign Office have decided that there is not a prima facie case, I do not for one moment believe that there is a prima facie case.
Surely, it is a commonplace among lawyers that if one is to decide whether there is a case to go to the jury, or a case to be adjourned from a police court to an assize, one has not merely to consider the evidence produced by the prosecution. The defence is also entitled to produce evidence, and one considers both, and takes a fair judgment upon that. I really cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, who is so good a supporter of the Government—perhaps I should envy him a little in that respect—should doubt that the Foreign Office comes to a fair and proper conclusion on this subject.
I wish only to deal with the third matter, the question of these 100 Yugoslavs.

It is perfectly clear that these men will not get a fair trial in Yugoslavia. There is no such thing as a fair trial in Yugoslavia or in any of the lands which the Soviet Union now dominate. Surely, we have learned the lessons of Furlan and Petkov, in Bulgaria, and of Mikolajczyk and his supporters in Poland. We should not in any way imitate the Czechs who recently handed back Mikolajczyk's secretary to the travesty of justice which we know will take place in Poland. While I entirely agree that all war criminals and men who have done these foul deeds ought to be properly judged, condemned and punished, at the same time I suggest that as over two years have now elapsed since the end of the war, it is a little difficult to understand, if these men are such foul war criminals, why they have not already been brought to trial. Justice should be reasonably speedy. We admit in these cases that it is not easy to bring men to trial straight away; let us allow a few months; but it is intolerable that, over two years after the end of the war, and sometimes three, four and even five years after the alleged crimes were committed, people should still be brought up on these charges. I feel it is high time that this business of raking up the troubles of the past should come to an end.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
said the Psalmist, but nowadays, it seems to be "sufficient unto the year," or perhaps, "sufficient unto the decade." We are living in a noisy, destructive and troublesome world, and one hopes that people will be able to forget what happened during the war and build up for themselves a happier future.

Mr. E. Fletcher: How long does my hon. Friend think it will be before the Polish compatriots of these people who suffered will be able to forget?

Mr. Blackburn: I do not for one moment think it will be possible for them to forget, but we do not judge justice by feelings of vengeance, and it is surely the first principle of law—and my hon. Friend is a Doctor of Law and a man of great distinction in this subject—that no man should be judged in his own court. That is the first principle of natural justice, and that is precisely the principle which we are contravening if we say that we are sending this man back to be tried by the people whom he wronged. Therefore, I


suggest that it would be far better to have an independent tribunal. It was said by the late Lord Palmerston
"Civis Romanus sum, civis Britannicus sum."
Whatever this country has stood for, it has always stood for the principles of justice and freedom, and I am horrified to think that, in this case of the Yugoslavs, we should have gone back on our cousins overseas, the Americans. Let us always lead the rest of the world in giving justice and freedom wherever these are needed.
May I finish on this note. There is no one who feels more keenly the essential case for which my hon. Friend has spoken than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary himself. On the only day he spoke upon this very matter, he said there was a marked feeling in the country that he had himself gone too far in appeasement. I fully support the Foreign Office in the actions they take to

deal with this matter, but I hope they will certainly not hand over these men to the travesty of justice which exists in that country. At the end of the war, it is indeed a sad thing to find that we have defeated one form of totalitarianism only to see half of Europe now gripped in the same disease.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware, since he mentioned the period of two years having elapsed since the war, that the agreement recently signed at Bled with the Yugoslavs states that no new names for forcible repatriation may be sent in after 8th November, a date now passed?

Mr. Blackburn: Yes, I am aware of that.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Nine o'Clock.